Tom,

Now your point is specified I can identify what it is about my derivation you haven't picked up on. It's no 'bluff', just the 'different way of looking at nature' which I've been at great pains to describe (but which most just ignore). I know I need to find better ways to express it so I'll test another.

First, consider standard quantum theory, where each (x,y,z) axis is considered and the relationship derived. You accept that the axes of A and B are related by opposing x axis (the particles head off in opposite directions) so ALSO a common y axis 'plane'. Now I focus on the detector electron field, and invoke a Bloch sphere with y as the 'equatorial plane'. We are now considering from the ELECTRON REST FRAME, so there is no translation, and the wavefront may interact, (at c of course) at ANY tangent point on the surface. That is a physical axiom. QM and Bell don't employ such things!

As we know from EM, the y plane stays orthogonal to the detector Magnetic field, so rotates with the setting angle. Each electron has also many magnitudes higher energy than that locally impinging on it (the 'photon' energy must clearly be spread in the Schrodinger sphere surface or it would 'miss!').

Now the nub; The OAM transfer detected is relative to the Y PLANE (spin), which varies non-linearly with LATITUDE between the plane (equator) and the pole. That non-linarity is geometrically (so mathematically) the cosine of the angle of the latitude from the y plane (sphere centre) forming the cones in my diagram (with time). Time is then built into the spin speed (dt), so dictates energy. Time does NOT further modulate the spin energy transferred in the interaction.

I know that's an unfamiliar way of thinking of the mechanism, but think it through a few times and it's veracity becomes clear. The RELATIVE angles of A and B are then represented by two cones in a combined Bloch sphere. Malus's Law ('energy change with cos theta') is then obeyed, perfectly reproducing QM's predictions.

A simple exercise may help with that; Plot the resultant cosine curve as electron x axis changes (latitude delta). Now square the cosines and plot again. You'll simply find another cosine curve! The relative spin flip (finding reversal) happens at the 'equator' where the setting angle is 90 degrees, clockwise switches to anticlockwise spin; simple discrete field dynamics.

So now you see that time IS fully accounted for, but in a physical model not just mathematically. What is important is that the nonsense of EPR superluminality is made redundant. Now I daresay you'll check against the old SR interpretation, find a slight change is also required there, so object. That is however not a valid objection. If you check you'll find only the 'paradoxes' of SR are removed by giving inertial systems non infinite domains. The rest is intact, stronger, and now field based so consistent with GR.

First let me know if you now understand the 4D derivation ('Hypothesis'). 'Believing', which means challenging old doctrine, can come later!

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #182

Margarita,

Thanks for your interesting post. I agree rating is inconsistent between authors. I consistently use the criteria, which I think mine fits well, but we do wrongly tend to favour things we also 'agree' with. Mine seems to be love or hate, I've had many '1' scores with no comments upping the total. Few seem to identify fundamental 'cause' of change as opposed to 'symptoms', but history's clear, it's new understanding of nature and technology that brings revolutionary advancement from stagnation.

On scores; I showed last year they mean little, but they do bring attention, needed in this case. The table is in the end notes, which is what they're for, and are findings of a REAL experiment! The essay discusses an important new conceptualisation of the real physical mechanism which QM entirely lacks, but is certainly nothing AT ALL like the draft scientific paper I promise! (you'd find an early draft buried on 'classical sphere's'.

Your comments on "form/conceptualisation" and; "something that may exist" confuse me. I'm not sure if you realise that QM entirely lacks BOTH of those! It always has. That (we may agree then?) along with a concept of 'time' inconsistent with relativity, is why it retains the EPR paradox and no classical (physical) explanation. THAT is what I now provide; the simple physical geometrical model to reproduce the findings that 'QM' claims are only explainable in terms of 'probability'.

You then say; "I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your assumptions." Which assumptions? I find remove more (unsupported) hidden ones than I invoke, and I invoke only known science from other fields, and give references! They are;

Electron spin flip, Gauged helicity, Non-mirror symmetry of spin, (see the ref's or just google) and the fact that opposite spin hemisphere's rotate in different directions (Earths N= anticlockwise, S = clockwise) with a non-linear distribution of rotation speed between pole and equator. All I've done is bring those coherently together.

Now if you still do think any are incorrect do please identify so I can check!

You also suggest I; "look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps" They were indeed early starting points, and all valid, viz; Imagine holding a gyro by the spin axis poles. Look from one end, it's clockwise, and opposite from the other. Now look at the middle, it's either spinning 'up' or 'down'. QM goes no further than considering a single snapshot. I just point out that the ends can be swapped (by switching EM field direction). Now imagine doing so, by switching the poles round between hands. You now find spin UP from the SAME 'particle', with conserved OAM! That inherent duality is what current QM doesn't recognise or accept!!

Of course I've discussed it with many 'in the field'. Some recognise it and are scared that the beliefs embedded in their psyche may be wrong, most scream and look away. We can't advance science by checking it against past science to ensure it's the same! The model is scientifically falsified, but needs the 'new way of thinking' that Bob demonstrates reveals the answer, which allows unification of the two "great pillars" of physics, called the Holy Grail of science. I've identified that history shows that only that can let us escape from this rut and progress! In fact the changes to QM are quite small and reflect von Neuman and Godel's conceptions. Uncertainty is only relegated to the next gauge down. It's the implications for other physics that are wider.

I'm disappointed I didn't get that across to all, and that you disagree. If it's the latter pleased do specify with what. It may be wrong or incomplete but I can't find where. Part of the value for all here is the wide falsification of hypotheses.

If you wish more technical details do see my last post to Tom (under Doug 17/5 above) though Tom isn't 'in the field' and does have his own agenda. Thank you for expressing your doubts and giving me the opportunity to address them. I do look forward to any further specifics. Best wishes

Peter

This is hopeless, Peter. There are many ways of looking at nature, yet only way to do science objectively, and that is in the demonstrated correspondence of a theory that makes a logically closed judgment, to a physical result that records a precise measurement. Special relativity does that, and you can't "bend" it to suit you without breaking it. Special relativity cannot in principle be compatible with your model. I say again -- if your model is right, special relativity is wrong. I have been specific about that, from the beginning and all along.

Best,

Tom,

Tom,

There's the problem. Clinging to beliefs resolutely isn't science. Seeing 'relativity' as all packeged up, done and dusted is wrong. Einstein didn't do so as he knew that meant a closed MIND. In this case showing that one part doesnt completely model nature does NOT make the rest fall as you assume. It makes it stronger, but yes, it also makes it different to YOUR beliefs.

I suggest you're exactly as wrong as J.J Thompson; NOTHING in science is 'done and dusted'. Einstein was right estimating; "less than 1,000th of 1%".

It's perfectly possible for two theories to predict identical results, both 'logically closed and mathematically complete'. In this case mine is a close clone of SR, but has a few added clarifications and consistencies with nature (i.e. the 'apparent' 46c jets which you continually ignore, QM, etc etc.). Now the only bits of YOUR 'SR' needing changing are unimportant and pure assumptions.

Just because slightly different (equally complete) maths is needed you run screaming in fear! If you examine it closely you'll find greater correspondence with nature. So your view of the QM solution is only distorted by your beliefs. That's what's dishonest. You can only challenge the veracity of my model by citing YOUR SR. That's no challenge Tom. But it's not 'hopeless', open your mind and see nature from one of those other ways of looking you agree exist! But use the SM instead.

The real truth really does NOT HURT. Only fear of letting go hurts.

Best wishes

Peter

"Seeing 'relativity' as all packeged up, done and dusted is wrong. Einstein didn't do so ..."

Yes, he did.

Special relativity is the special case of uniform motion of which Einstein ruefully said that "relativity" is a poorly chosen label, since it is a theory of the absolute.

General relativity that extends Newtonian mechanics to accelerated motion is the incomplete version of Einstein relativity, as he intended it to be. It is a theory of gravity, however, unrelated to your model.

Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity, Peter, I am afraid you are just kidding yourself. Don't try to kid others who have actually studied the subject -- no, the truth doesn't hurt; it liberates.

Best,

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #186

Tom,

"Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity.." There's that same old cracked record. How many times? I understand it just fine thank you! You seem to think that means I MUST also believe it over any other equally complete formulation. I don't, and Einstein's final paper never claimed what you do.

Your closed mindedness ensures you'll remain wrong and that's that.

The scenario I set out is still there for analysis. You avoid it as it will show your beliefs to be nonsensical. Your only option is to try.

Its ironic that the truth you deny would SAVE SR from death by it's inconsistencies. The evidence will keep on building, i.e. this on isotropy from a recent paper;

AE; "...the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity."

"Against Einstein's assertion, modern authors like Wilheim, Wesley or Levy consider that the anisotropy of the one way speed of light can be indirectly established by measuring the absolute velocity of the solar system using different methods: Vaucouleurs & Peters, Rubin, Conklin, Henry, Smoot et al, Gorenstein & Smoot, Partridge, Monstein & Wesley, Marinov, Torr and Kolen, DeWitte, or Cahill & Kitto.

Fundamental tests of special relativity theory purporting to demonstrate the invariance of the speed of light were based on erroneous ideas. Múnera shown that Michelson interferometers reveal small but significant effects of the Earth's absolute motion, but only when they are operated in a dielectric. Cahill & Kitto analysed the old results from gas-mode interferometers and revealed an absolute speed of 369 ± 123 km/s. A more recent evaluation by Cahill yielded 420 ± 30 km/s, in excellent agreement with the cited experiments and with the speed of 365 ± 18 km/s determined by the COBE satellite ..empirical results provide weighty arguments in favour of the anisotropy of space. The small quantity v/c derived from the absolute speed of the Earth is compatible with the classical experiments: Michelson & Morley(1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al (1964), etc. Indeed, the space is quasi-isotropic."

You clearly fully swallowed the propaganda Tom, so stick with your belief based version of 'science' and refuse to look at anything that may challenge it if that's what you wish. But you should stop fooling yourself it's science. You've offered ZERO scientific falsification of my hypothesis. I'll stick with the Scientific Method; NOTHING is beyond challenge, and the MORE consistent version is always better.

Peter

"'Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity..' There's that same old cracked record. How many times? I understand it just fine thank you!"

Demonstrably Peter, you do not. No matter how many votes you solicit for your essay from people who also don't know the foundations of classical physics, you still don't understand relativity.

If you did, you would see that special relativity, which is specifically formulated for observers in an unaccelerated frame of reference, is not and cannot be compatible with your measurement framework which demands an instantaneous change of reference frame between observers. Quantun mechanics solves this problem by normalizing the time parameter, c = 1. How do you solve it? --

"All spin can then involve OAM, requiring two poles ('states'); clockwise / anti-clockwise. Only one state is 'measurable' at a time, so is 'observer dependent'."

The conservation of orbital angular momentum is not observer-dependent; it is a symmetry principle expressed physically as Newton's third law of motion. That is why the time parameter in quantum mechanics is set to 1. I won't rehash how Joy Christian has solved the problem with a topology possessing only a simple pole at infinity. Point is, were you to work it out in a mathematical theory, you would find that you are also normalizing t to 1. Your parameters and results do not differ from the results of conventional QM, though you have obscured that issue with a lot of things that don't matter.

Best,

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #188

To,

I know you'll believe what you want to believe irrespective of evidence, but for anybody not bored with reading I'll explain again;

Transforms between inertial systems are not 'instant'. They are 'accelerations', like jumping onto a moving bus. B Now focus on reality; Consider Harry 'propagating' at 3^6kph towards Tom and Dick. All have watches ticking at the same rate. Now if Tom jumps on the back of a bus moving at v towards Harry, but Dick doesn't, it doesn't mean that Harry is 'approaching' both Tom and Dick at the SAME speed! Einstein's maths suggest 'yes'(ish!) as he couldn't find another option.

But in my schema the bus is a REAL inertial 'system', so in it's own 'rest frame' when not accelerating. Harry's giant clock will APPEAR to be going faster to Tom than t Dick as Tom is approaching it! OK? Nothing challengable so far.

Now Harry hasn't changed speed, so is doing closing speed c+v wrt the bus, BUT, as he reaches the bus and jumps on at the front he has to decelerate by v to SLOW DOWN to the bus rest frame (not 'instantly' or he may compress too much!) Only once IN THE BUS's LOCAL inertial system does Harry do c wrt the bus (and wrt Tom).

But Harry is now doing c-v wrt Dick, who's still standing at rest in his initial rest frame watching the bus disappear! Sound does EXACTLY he same. It was only as Einstein, searching for 'LOCAL REALITY', couldn't commit himself to seeing inertial systems as LOCALLY REAL (as he didn't know about the electron domain limits) had to settle for the mathematical description alone, misguiding most. he maths work just fine, but they have NO DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE to the physical process. The LT is simply when high relative speeds force high electron density so wavelength approach the minimum; gamma.

Now I know that's entirely unfamiliar to you, like preaching christianity to a muslim, but it none the less proves the SR postulate AND Einsteins final 1954 description, and WITHOUT all the paradoxes and inconsistent evidence!

So you're again quite wrong Tom, I DON'T need c=1 as in my schema there NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE! The logic is finally complete without those issues. Yes. I do understand the maths and 'geometry' used in the old SR interpretation, but it means nothing to nature.

Now please address the scenario for flaws in any response. Just repeating your beliefs is meaningless 'chanting'.

Peter

You're right that this is entirely unfamiliar to me, Peter.

Dear Peter,

just a question: I'm confused why you say``Earth's population has doubled after 2020''... the indications now are that the population growth should stop before 2050, stabilizing around 9-10 billion people. Just wondering whether you have a particular reason not to trust these estimates or yours was just an unimportant remark, put for stylistic/rhetorical reasons...

anyway best luck,

Flavio

Flavio,

For Earth's future population I chose the ~90th percentile of the many estimates, but trivially to remind us that we don't 'know', so may have serious problems from many more areas than just climate change. I recognize stabilization as a low-end scenario.

The curves I've seen give little indication of that yet (but didn't add the putin factor!) Have you seen better data? My point is anyway that treating symptoms almost certainly won't advance us enough. Why not then take the fundamental quantum leap in unifying our understanding of nature if available?

Best wishes

Peter

    Mr. Jackson,

    Fabulous essay, a prepossessing way to lead the attention to this fabulous ten axioms.

    Wish you good luck with your essay.

    Kindly,

    Orenda

    Tom,

    That's a start, because we learn until we die. Suggesting only you 'understand' relativity is badly mistaken. It seems from your LI profile that I learnt SR some years before you. However I was taught all theory the same; It's all theory. The ruling paradigms are normally the best fit SO FAR! (but rather 'voted on', which is always unreliable.

    You repeatedly quot terms like 'logically closed' and 'mathematically complete', but they mean far less than you give them credit for. The choice is between more than one such theory, and the arbiter is nature. Both SR and GR do increasingly poorly. Most 'evidence' (you cite) is for GR not SR, but they also have a similar ratio of inconsistencies. If those are not resolved the whole schema will eventually fail. Nature is unified. Theory must be too.

    Finding something 'unfamiliar' should hopefully help you understand how that's possible. I sure you haven't lost the capacity to learn. Facing up to the inconsistencies is the first step. That means an open mind. I promise it doesn't hurt to face reality Tom. Perhaps start with quasar jets.

    Best of luck in the judging. I anticipate we'll both be passed over again, but the judges may perhaps see the importance of treating cause over symptoms more clearly than most, so giving an EFFECTIVE means of progress. We'll see.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter, whether you learned special relativity 50 years ago or yesterday, you should still have learned that it's based on rigid transformations in spacetime, of non-inertial systems. Your model isn't.

    Flavio,

    After racing past Richard Gill in the Baltic and flying over Eckard's head (Magdeberg) I'm in Prague for the 2014 European Space Expo catching up with progress on Galileo and Copernicus (global warming). The up to date population data ESA are using is the current increase of 20,000+/day and projection of 11 billion by the turn of the century and probably NOT leveling off. I know that's a little over the UN projections but there seems continuing controversy about those.

    But projections are all trivial. I see more of a problem 'locking ourselves in'. Did you know there will soon be a million bits of junk in orbit of 1cm or more. Just one collision could take out a satellite, creating dozens more. We can then have a cascade effect, creating a cocoon of bits doing thousands of mph in all directions! Galileo alone (ESA GPS) is another 30 satellites going up in the next few years.

    If we don't escape this theoretical 'entrenchment' (Lahav 2014) soon I suggest we may not escape it at all. Is that 'alarmist'?

    Peter

    Tom,

    I was taught SR differently to your understanding; It is "based on" the two postulates. The rest is just assumptions. Einstein himself confirmed this in 1952 ; "the entire theory (of SR) is contained within the postulates"

    As the Duhem-Quine thesis (Gilliees 1993); Theories 'consist' in total of two parts, the main theoretical hypotheses and auxiliary assumptions. You are neglecting to make that distinction. I do so.

    Indeed my clarification finds the 'Local Reality" Einstein spent his later days searching for. Inertial systems are REAL, LOCAL, and all entirely EQUIVALENT as rest frames for measurement of the local maximum PROPAGATION speed 'c'. What I identify is the boundaries BETWEEN these frames.

    I then complete the quartet.

    Proper Time/Co-ordinate time, and Proper Speed/Co-ordinate speed. That is then logivcally complete, with speed as D/T.

    Proper is propagation, co-ordinate is simply 'relative' and arbitrary. My co-author John Minkowski agrees entirely with the local emergent 'Minkowski space-time' very much as Hermann's descriptions.

    Th auxhiliary assumption you assume as part of the core is not, and is adjusted to find the consistent logic, as the simpler mathematics shows. (delta v giving constant local c and delta wavelength as Doppler shift). If you wish to disagree please offer a scientific falsification not just another claim of veracity of the familiar version.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    "What I identify is the boundaries BETWEEN these frames."

    If there were a boundary between inertial rest frames, Lorentz transformation would be superfluous and the speed of light would not be a constant. Einstein was not 'searching' for local reality; his theory explicitly concludes that "all physics is local," as he said.

    Your understanding of special relativity is simply incorrect.

    Best,

    Tom

    Tom,

    I first learned is as you believe, beset by paradoxes and anomalies. The alternative has none. You haven't once yet addressed the alternatives on a scientific comparison basis. You're still then doing 'religion' not science.

    In the DFM the LT describes the physical process AT the inertial system boundaries. The speed of the light HAS to change to become c in the NEW inertial system rest frame on each transition. That part is exactly like sound, which does the speed of sound ('s') wrt the rest frame of ALL co-moving media.

    Both do c (s) wrt the rest state of the system they are propagating within, NOT any other, as found. All the time your understanding cannot explain superluminal jets and all the other anomalous phenomena it will remain seriously inferior to the one that does so. It's as John quoted Huxley "..intelligent, but not intelligent enough". (i.e. m=E/c^2 and E=mc^2 use inertial and relativistic mass, a 'slight of hand' those intelligent enough can spot!).

    It was the army in the cold war era doing the 'joint' Venus work with the USSR who propagated Shapiro's distorted data 'proving' SR. An allowance for 'atmopheric delay' was guessed at over 90% of the delay, leaving the "SR prediction" (100% wrong but adjusted later) Venus Express has found a dense atmosphere and 400kph winds! The Russians weren't fooled and the disinformation backfired. Were you just taken in? or one of those culpable and still trying?

    I now have nearly 200 posts. I suggest cold war propaganda is out of date Tom. It'll get mankind nowhere.

    Peter, if you think the number of posts on your essay forum determines whether special relativity is complete and correct or not, I'm afraid you're destined to be disappointed.

    Tom,

    Your 'logic' defies rationality. I put the 200 posts down solely to your persistence at the pulpit. I suspect you'll convert nobody Tom.

    We all have things to learn. If you think you don't and won't even 'look' then it's just preaching. Perhaps you'd have better luck elsewhere.

    Best wishes

    Peter