Why Quantum?

Peter,

I really wish you to sit back and take a look at all that has transpired so far. Read the views Newton expressed again in section 5.1-4 that I linked, even if you have done that 100 times before. Why I urge you to do so is that the beautiful DFM baby should not be thrown away with the bathwater just because of your insistence that there is always a 'next frame up' ad infinitum, which is mathematically possible but physically illogical (again see Newton's reasons and arguments). Trying to fit this 'ad infintum next frame up' has also led to erroneous statements, such as

"Earth then has a 370km/s speed THROUGH THE LOCAL BARYCENTRIC (SUN) REST FRAME", when the whole world knows the speed as 30km/s. And

"The 370km/s is Earth's speed wrt our OWN star, NOT any others!", when most take the red-blue shift as the velocity with respect to the CMBR. As you know, our star (the sun) moves at about 225km/s about the galaxy centre, so can the Chariot (earth) run faster than the horse dragging it?

Why give Tom his opportunity to laugh at you?

Any way, if you will not bulge that's okay. Did you see Georgina Perry's link to the The effects of clock drift on the Mars Exploration Rovers?

I have been looking at the paper. I don't have access to the number of times measurements were taken from the Fig. 2 and 3. If you do, let me know so I check if it fits 'clocks will run faster on Mars, than Earth due to its lesser gravity' doctrine.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Newtons shortcoming was clear. Relativity tried to resolve it but just found other paradox. Neither can explain experimental findings, mainly CSL, consistently.

I read it again as you asked. It hadn't changed. He assumed some 'true speed' a priori (on top of the correct 'true rest states') so was doomed from the start (he borrowed it from Aristotle and Descartes). The flaw in his "spinning bucket of water" justification is clear. When the water has accelerated the bucket is in the SAME STATE as the water! He calls the bucket 'the background', but the "air outside" is the background, in which case he's clearly WRONG!

I certainly agree his; "True rest cannot be defined simply in terms of position relative to other bodies in the local vicinity". It needs a whole 'background system' (with it's own rest frame) for any 'speed' to be measured. Also;

"Property: If a part of a body maintains a fixed position with respect to the body as a whole, then it participates in the motion of the whole body." (and)

"Conclusion: True and absolute motion cannot be defined as a translation from the vicinity of (the immediately surrounding) bodies, viewing the latter as if they were at rest." As that's consistent with the 'absolute' being a misnomer.

And; "The complete and absolute motion of a body cannot be defined except by means of stationary places". As that's true of ALL motion!

The constant speed of light falsified Newton. Einstein took one step the right way, but failed to rationalise findings. Discrete field dynamics completes the rationalisation, predicting ALL findings, most importantly Local Reality and CSL.

You have only used beliefs to dismiss it Akinbo. Why not assess on the evidence. Many more than Tom will first laugh, as did the flat Earthers and those dismissing Copernican and Galilean dynamics. There's no hurry. 2020 is still a long way off.

In the meantime findings from space exploration push our anomalous theory inexorably further in the right direction every day. I'll see what's been announced this week and post it before entirely giving up on you.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

"Debate settled..interstellar plasma..local hot bubble." Today, announcing two new 'Nature' papers reporting findings about; "Local Interstellar Clouds and the Local Hot Bubble," (Remember the picture of LL Orionis in my 2020 Vision essay?

The 'bubble' actually has a very thick 'skin', but theory is inevitably 'closing in' on the consistent solution that it scatters light to the local c (thus the 'soft X-rays' scattered (in the local Doppler frame) at the whole bubble surface. some quotes;

"New research resolves a decades-old puzzle about a fog of low-energy X-rays observed over the entire sky, confirming the long-held suspicion that much of this glow stems from a region of million-degree interstellar plasma known as the local hot bubble. ...of hot gas extending out a few hundred light-years from the solar system in all directions.

...An atom of interstellar helium collides with a solar wind ion losing one of its electrons to the other particle. As it settles into a lower-energy state, the electron emits a soft X-ray.

...The solar system is currently passing through a small cloud of cold interstellar gas as it moves through the galaxy. The cloud's neutral hydrogen and helium atoms stream through the planetary system at about 56,000 mph (90,000 km/h).

...In the 1990s, a six-month all-sky survey by the German X-ray observatory ROSAT provided improved maps of the diffuse background, but it also revealed that comets were an unexpected source of soft X-rays.

...only about 40 percent of the soft X-ray background originates within the solar system. "We now know that the emission comes from both sources but is dominated by the local hot bubble," said Galeazzi. "This is a significant discovery. Specifically, the existence or nonexistence of the local bubble affects our understanding of the area of the galaxy close to the sun, and can, therefore, be used as a foundation for future models of the galaxy structure."

Think hard about the anomaly and read between the lines of the rationalisation. It's not there yet, but all the findings themselves are predicted 'spot on' by the DFM's dynamics. New Findings from X-Ray Instrument Settle Decades-Old Interstellar Debate. July 2014. There are many more each week.

Have you ever tried to put yourself in the minds of the flat Earther's to understand the fundamental unfamiliar and seemingly ridiculous proposition they were faced with?

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

The interstellar 'wind' (frame) direction change is only predicted by the DFM's cyclic model, caused by the peculiar motions of the ISM and the stars slow rotation around the local arm (see the ref's in that paper).

I was filing away the paper above and came across this, identifying the ('Sun's) direction change. (of 4-9 degrees wrt the local surrounding 'ambient medium' or 'cloud' rest frame ).

(The link I posted from the findings of the new multi billion VLBA telescope array proves the refractive scattering to the 'cloud frame).

But far wider than that, checking out the latest particle physics papers is even more conclusive. I've just posted the links on "Ripping apart..." where they point the way to coherently re-assembly of the genuine remnants of both Einstein and Newton!

Now don't fret. No matter what the evidence I know you'll believe whatever you wish to as we're all only human, but I do thank you for causing me to to the quick trawl which found those important confirmations of the new coherent shape of the puzzle pieces. If you'd like a more theoretic view of the same logic the 2013 'Paper of the Year' from SISSA's Liberati points from another vector 'triangulating' the logical solution into a tightly constrained 'DFM like' dynamic;

Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update.

Best wishes

Peter

Why quantum?

Here is why: http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7610 Next puzzle please.

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 29, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT

"We must all follow out own path Steve."

A fairly common occurrence when one tries to ask simple questions of any new model of the universe are that there do not seem to be answers to these simple questions. Invariably a series of increasingly complex explanations obscure rather than reveal any underlying truth associated with the model. The inability to represent any part of the model in simple terms coupled with the increasing complexity of successive explanations obscures any underlying simplicity.

Instead of an answer to a question, proponents often answer with more questions or a terse statement of self evidence or of a prior paper that ostensibly addresses the issue. When one goes to the paper in question, one gets even more confused with more of the same recursive discourse. The discourse evolves into a gibberish that is incoherent and unproductive.

I personally like to find out about other people's interpretations of the universe and find that they are very much like a religion. I then feel like I better understand my own beliefs, but I have not yet found one that fulfills the promise of better predictions of action and I search on for an improved prediction of action.

Steve,

The things it does best are predict, and explain fundamentals simply. Did you understand how it reproduced quantum predictions classically? or precluded the need for 'relative' time, allowing unification? It also predicts every one of the anomalous CMB anisotropies identified, and derives a physical mechanism for the LT. etc etc.

The problem is that we all have different 'expectations'. The simple new fundamental mechanism, continuous re-scattering to the new local c, uses more consistent foundations well below those you see as the 'basics' so is inconsistent with your view. 'Entropy' is a conceptually misunderstood and apparently redundant concept, and there is certainly no need for 'messenger' particles. But if you insist those are correct a priori, then the simpler answer can only look more complex.

But all avenues must be travelled Steve. I can't and shouldn't expect all to just abandon their beliefs and switch to some entirely different view that seems alien to them. I can only point out that it IS simpler, and works perfectly. Most to the point, NOBODY has yet found any flaw in testing it with the scientific method (objectively). That's a permanent challenge I've laid down. I wish more would try.

The problem is that we don't generally use the SM as habit, we 'pattern match' with the established pictures in our neural networks and if it doesn't fit something already there it's rejected. That's the current state of our intellectual evolution and we can only make the best of it. Perhaps we lead the universe! My guess would be probably not! so patience is a virtue.

Best wishes

Peter

Florin, here's your next puzzle:

Why the world appears invariant under all transformations in a coordinate free geometry.

Tom,

The world is relative, there are no absolute things (except death and taxes, ha, ha). It's a primitive principle of nature which cannot be explained using other things.

Here is a big puzzle: what is time? Is time a consequence of QM? I don't know yet, but I'll find out.

"The world is relative, there are no absolute things ..."

Other than the value of the speed of light in a vacuum.

" ... (except death and taxes, ha, ha)."

Taxes are our own contrivance. Death may also be, unless one can precisely and non-arbitrarily demarcate life from death.

"It's a primitive principle of nature which cannot be explained using other things."

Not that primitive. Relativity, as Einstein averred, is an unfortunate name for a theory that demands an absolute value. Regardless of how it's used in the vernacular, Relativity in physics does not mean, "Everything is relative."

"Here is a big puzzle: what is time? Is time a consequence of QM? I don't know yet, but I'll find out."

Good luck. My own finding is that time and information are identical, on the physical definition of 'time:' "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random, self-avoiding walk." Works for me.

" ... real but not material things ... "

Can one name anything that doesn't fit that description?

Virtual particles and photons, wave-functions, the infrastructure that imposes the Invariance of the speed of light, the space-time continuum itself (geometry), there are lots of things that exist but are not material. The Higgs field and Higgs boson can barely be thought of as material; I could argue that it's not material. Even light is not really material.

"Virtual particles and photons, wave-functions, the infrastructure that imposes the Invariance of the speed of light, the space-time continuum itself (geometry), there are lots of things that exist but are not material."

Right. Actually, everything. If one takes "material" synonymous with "physical," all that is required for physics is space and time.

"The Higgs field and Higgs boson can barely be thought of as material; I could argue that it's not material. Even light is not really material."

Some years ago, Paul Davies and and John Gribbin wrote a book titled The Matter Myth. If you haven't read it, I think you would like it.

It is my hope that some day, maybe in a few centuries, that scientists will be able to unlock some mechanisms hidden deeper within this invisible space-time geometry and quantum vacuum. Perhaps some mechanism that sets the speed of light. I would love to see the day when physicists can learn to control the speed of light in a vehicular sort of way.

Akinbo,

If you're not familiar with the 'amplituhedron', it provides a close and (I find) compelling representation of the hierarchical 'fractal gauge' dynamics I invoke.

Amplituhedron.

It's based on much evidence. Can you see it's logic? Might it be a valid tool in describing hierarchical dynamics?

If you like stuff a bit more extreme, have you seen how central the top Lockheed Martin scientist considers the propagation of electrons with motion?

Boyd Bushman On Antigravity. There are other video's showing his theories experimentally confirmed, but mainstream theorists can't rationalise it so ignore it! (as the US government wants).

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

I became lost in the argument, the moment you said, "Earth then has a 370km/s speed THROUGH THE LOCAL BARYCENTRIC (SUN) REST FRAME" and "The 370km/s is Earth's speed wrt our OWN star, NOT any others!", which I was hoping was a typo on your part but it appears it was not.

Take a listen..., p.4

"By far the largest signal in the microwave background anisotropy is the dipole, recently measured by WMAP (Bennett et al. 2003b) to be (3.346 В± 0.017) mK in the direction (l = 263o.85В± 0.o1, b = 48o.25В± 0.04) in Galactic coordinates. This is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the root-mean-square (rms) anisotropy in the dipole subtracted sky, and so thought not to be of cosmological origin, but rather to be caused by the motion of the solar system with respect to the rest frame defined by the CMB. As shown by Peebles & Wilkinson (1968), the dipole induced by a velocity v is T(v/c) cos Оё, where Оё is measured from the direction of motion. Given T = (2.725В± 0.002) K (Mather et al. 1999), one infers that v в‰ѓ 370 kmsв€'1.

You or some other member in good standing may want to suggest CMB as an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, 2014 being the 50th anniversary of its discovery. It is worth celebrating!

Regards,

Akinbo

*I will see the Amplituhedron link. Has a nice picture and could be interesting.

*Tom appears to be chuckling offline at that error.

I don't have much quarrel with your post on Jul. 30, 2014 @ 17:28 GMT. In the paper you linked, "The heliosphere is situated near the inside edge of an interstellar cloud and the two move past each other at a velocity of 50,000 miles per hour. This motion creates a wind of neutral interstellar atoms blowing past Earth, of which helium is the easiest to measure,..". This may be a distraction. The 50,000 miles per hour comes to a mere 22.3km/s compared to the 370km/s if that is what you have in mind.

Do you believe in multiverses of the type that ours is moving with respect to another and that other os in turn moving with respect to yet another, etc? There must be some limit to absurdity on the smallest and largest of scales. At the smallest, we have the 'extended point or monad', at the largest a finite universe (with CMB as trace marker), not moving with respect to any other thing.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Yes I see my error; Earth's speed is 30.3kps, but my point is valid despite the typo. Copi and most identified a CMB dipole from 'A' rest frame not 'THE ONLY' rest frame. The frame used is NOT valid from Earth, as we must add or subtract up to 30.3kps, then also add or subtract the orbital/rotational velocity of the telescope.

The 'Solar system' is considered, correctly, as a unique bulk 'system' with it's own rest frame, doing 370kps wrt the rest frame of the galactic region which a was picked at the nominal dipole rest frame.

The point is even clearer when considering greater scales. i.e. that selected CMB rest frame is itself travelling at great speed wrt The Andromeda galaxy, which has it's own based on it's centre of mass (unless you wish to claim they use ours!)

Now look back to Smoot's Nobel paper and later Planck findings; The fact the solar system is doing '370kps wrt the CMB' is only LOCALLY relevant. The galaxy itself has a local velocity wrt the Local Group (LG) and the LG also has a velocity wrt the cluster and LOCAL CMB! Smoot found that ('vLG') as ~627kps. The cluster also has a speed in it's own surrounds, etc. etc. even the filaments 'move' and rotate! There are two ways of looking at everything but only one is logically consistent! - and it's 'hierarchical'.

I agree; "There must be some limit to absurdity on the smallest and largest of scales." Indeed. I thought you'd read the cyclic evolution paper which painstakingly presents the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the latest 'cosmic cartography' video I posted. The centre of this universe also has a centre-of-mass rest frame (possibly at the 'great attractor'). If you can explain infinity then the hierarchy may be infinite. If you can explain it stopping then it can stop!

The LT paper gives the lower limit for matter, which is the single quanta max density or min wavelength gamma (the plasma limit). If we accept dark energy as in the a standard model of cosmology we have to accept a condensate, so some 'sub' matter energy state (~70% of the universe no less!) but I don't propose then EM propagation speed can be modulated (to local c) by anything below it's min wavelength gamma.

So we need to talk of 'local' CMB dipole, and 'domain limits', as Scott & Smoot and the smartest in astronomy, even without the DFM's rationalisation of local

Peter,

To be sincere I see you as a honest toiler after the truth. Your nemesis is that DFM is in my opinion too ambitious a project. Seeking to 'join up' all of physics. In my view I think it better to take care of the small fundamental things and the big things will take care of themselves. But DFM wants to take care of quantum correlations and also explain astrophysical jets! I can only encourage you but to actually make impact it may be wise also to focus intensely one small falsehood in physics and resolve. I know this piecemeal method may not be to your liking.

Now to the matter at hand, from a reference book in front of me: The solar sysem is located about 25000 l.years from the galaxy center, it revolves around this centre at a speed 225km/s, making one turn in 200x10^6 years.

Then the solar system velocity relative to the microwave background radiation is 380km/s towards a point at RA = 18.5H, D = +30, in the Leo constellation.

What Copi and previous workers found is an anisotropy which was dipole in nature, i.e. red in one direction and blue in the opposite. Of course, this finding was from the earth's frame. If it is then assumed to be due to observer motion at 370km/s, and we transform to the CMB frame by masking out the dipole anisotropy, all other irregularities (anisotropies) were very small in comparison, hence the initial statement that CMB was perfectly smooth after the correction. As you pointed out however, this has now being found not to be absolutely so. Let us leave the explanation for another blog.

As to the ('vLG') as ~627kps, since we are part of the ship, it is irrelevant to us. We partake of it. The CMB-centric motion has already accounted for it (I may be wrong). W don't partake of the CMB motion, but we partake of the other motions. CMB is fom outside our ship and has not been tied to any ship in the hierarchy. But humans are moving on a ship called earth, the earth is moving in a ship called the solar system. The solar system is moving in a ship called the Milky way. The milky way is moving about the Local group and we also partake of all these. It is the NET that the CMB is showing us. And if our instruments are fine enough we may even be able to see the tiny anisotropies due to these our other motion in ships within ship.

From all indications so far the CMB sits at the top of the hierarchy as far as motion is concerned but I know you may not agree yet if the CMB is of cosmological origin at a beginning and is present in ALL of space, not 100% uniform but fairly close giving what your astrophysical jets keep shooting out, I think to a large extent it satisfies Newton's position. After all, in SR, it is fundamental that electromagnetic phenomena CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, tell an observer he is moving, (i.e. what speed, which direction, whether you are stationary, etc). That is the meaning of the CSL that most misinterpret. The CMB has falsified all of that. Back to Newton!

Akinbo