Tom,

I see the "genuinely modern physics" as that which uses the quantum world to explain the macro to be quite intriguing. I marvel at the unfolding understanding of the classical world by studying the very small in the field of quantum biology regarding navigation of birds, DNA, and the LHC. I do believe "reality checks" can be warped by false interpretations, but see progress in modern studies like peer-reviewed BICEP2 and searching for the origins of Earth's water -- asteroids vs. comets -- by landing on comets and studying them.

Not being a mathematician, I don't know if "over-mathematized" is a continuing threat. I do believe that its worship as divorced from pure physics is not good.

I also see too much attribution of the classical world's behavior to the quantum world.

Enjoyed your essay, Tom. Thanks for sharing.

Jim

Dear Jim,

Yes, the quantum world is much used to explain the world of our senses. But the opposite is also true. For instance there is the Drude theory of electrical and thermal conduction, which uses the classical kinetic theory of gas dynamics to treat the valence electrons in a conductor as a gas. And so on. That might fit your observation about "attribution of the classical world's behavior to the quantum world."

I am glad you could tolerate my essay. I think most physicists would not feel that way about it.

Best, Tom

    Incidentally, Tom, I worked for a short time at NOTS, later called Naval Weapons Station, in 1968. The sand was bad for my pregnant wife and we went to the Naval undersea Warfare Center.

    Jim

    6 days later

    Dear Professor Phipps,

    I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

    All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

    Joe Fisher

    Dear Tom,

    All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed no matter the apparent separation and seeming solid, liquid or vaporous physical conditions of observed surfaces.

    One must only be able to see real surface. Dreamers can only ever see dream surfaces. Alert mirage watchers can only ever see mirage surfaces. LSD shooters can only ever see psychedelic surfaces.

    Unfortunately, telescopes and microscopes and cameras utterly distort all real human observation of surface. But even those instruments confirm that it is physically impossible to identify a non-surface, therefore all surfaces must travel at the same constant speed at all times.

    Gratefully,

    Joe Fisher

      Please keep in mind that you have always had a real complete skin surface. All natural objects such as real planets, real trees, real mountains, and real blades of grass each have a real complete surface. The real surface of a fabricated sphere could only travel at the same constant speed as the real surface of a fabricated cube whether the sphere had been physically induced to spin or not. All you have to do to prove this is to look at a real spinning sphere that has been placed on a flat surface next to a real cube. You see both partial surfaces instantaneously and simultaneously.

      As I advised you, Newton, and Einstein were completely wrong about the abstract motion of abstract objects.

      Joe Fisher

      There are many things that you state that are true and consistent with observations and there are many things that you state that are demonstrably inconsistent with observations. Math has nothing to to with it.

      You do not mention whether mass is equivalent to energy in your model...it if is, then LT follows. If MEE is not well enough demonstrated by the countless observations including nuclear defects, it is not clear what observations would invalidate MEE for you.

      You mention GPS clock corrections for gravity, which are true. GPS clocks are synchronized for gravity and that change is constant, but that does not invalidate the fact that gravity affects clocks. You also state that GPS accounts for velocity by changing clocks, but this is not true. The relative velocity of a GPS sattelite does affect its clock and that change must accounted for continuously by knowing velocity.

      Since the Lorentz transformation works so well and satellite velocity relative to the ground an easy calc, the LT is an easy calc and GPS gives very precise locations. But there is no such thing as a uniform GPS time.

      Dear Steve,

      I take it you are a relativist. If so. thanks for taking the time to set me straight. Most would not bother.

      That said, I must confess to being mystified, rather than enlightened, by your two criticisms.

      First, you bring up E = mc^2 as justifying the LT. The LT does not refer to mass or energy, so this is a bit of a stretch. There are even some who attribute E = mc^2 to others than Einstein.

      Your second point, about GPS time, escapes me. But let us suppose you are right, and GPS time does not flow uniformly. ("There is no such thing as a uniform GPS time.") In that case forget GPS time and call uniformly flowing time by some other name, say, Collective Time (CT). This is achieved in the way I described. Namely, by correcting clock running rates for gravity and motion, so that all clocks run in step. Yes, the motion corrections have to be continually up-dated to bring this about. Then CT flows uniformly, just as Newton said. "Time" is freed from the infirmities of clocks. Just as, in thermodynamics, "temperature" is freed (by corrections) from the infirmities of thermometers. No? Impossible? Impossible only if we live "in" Minkowski space.

      I should like to end our argument here, since otherwise I fear (as in the case of Joe Fisher) we shall merely begin to repeat ourselves, so that argument is reduced to the dueling of mantras.

      Best, Tom

        I actually am a quantumologist, not really a relativist per se. The equation for LT, gamma, comes from the ratio of energies or masses, and so is dimensionless. However, equating mass and energy is the key to LT and that is my point.

        There are some serious flaws in GR, but LT is not one of them. The equivalence of mass and energy (MEE) is the underpinning of my universe and yet there are many things misleading about obsessing with the speed of light being constant. While that is a useful principle in many contexts, it is MEE that is the overarching principle, not LT.

        While it is possible to synchronize clocks in gravity fields as GPS time, a moving clock ticks slower than a clock at rest. If you synchronize rest and moving frame GPS clocks, the direction of motion no longer dilates, but the other two dimensions then expand, so then you need to account for that change. The bottom line is that GPS clocks time more slowly according to their relative velocities.

        There is an absolute clock in the CMB, which is a z = 1091, so if you want an absolute time, that would be the clock to use. Local time is our Cs-133 atomic clock, but we actually need both dimensions of time to know what time it is, absolute time and local time. This is the proper time of relativity, but velocity still makes moving clocks tick more slowly than the CMB clock, which is the clock of the universe.

        Dear Steve,

        In 1960, before you were born, I published my one and only Phys. Rev. paper, "Generalization of Quantum Mechanics." I guess I was a quantumologist then, without knowing it. But, needless to say, I failed to revolutionize quantumology.

        I do not know about those other two dimensions expanding that you speak of. That's not standard 1905 SRT in any case. And about needing "to account for that change," I am also at sea. Account how? The moving clock has already been set in a certain way. Are we to reset it, or does it reset itself? In any case, we agree "that GPS clocks time more slowly according to their relative velocities" -- provided we are talking about proper time and uncompensated clocks. If the clocks have been fiddled with, they could run faster, slower, or anything.

        I agree that one can get fooled by over-emphasizing light speed constancy. The definition of speed depends on the way time is measured. In fact the modification of Maxwell's equations I proposed predicts variable light speed, when the wave equation is solved. I did not want to get into that, since a recent paper of mine in Physics Essays does so.

        I completely buy the mass-energy equivalence as physics. It is the logical link to the LT that I question. But, as I said, we are in danger of merely reiterating our positions. Remember, "time" in the LT is always proper time. Deviate from that and it is a new ballgame.

        GPS time or CT, as I choose to see it, requires a "Master Clock" showing its proper time, at rest in any inertial system. ("Slave" clocks in other states of motion are corrected to run in step with this Master.) That could include your CMB system, but does not require it.

        Best, Tom

        Tom,

        Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/28, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

        Jim

        Dear Professor Phipps

        I enjoyed your essay - the sense of indignation at what is being fobbed on us as physics, and reading your assured corrections (Maxwell Eq.) or demolitions (the alleged symmetry of space and time).

        In my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) I have proposed a universal theory starting from scratch - in which time is nonexistent, just the accounting of the 'now' state of an evolving universe. No time dilation just changing clock time as you propose. And certainly no space contraction, just physical change in the length of meter sticks. In BU effects are local, discrete and causal, and 'spacetime' a dirty word. Clever mathematics has allowed Einstein to propose a fixed speed of light c and everything else, space and time contort according to an observer. Why is an observer - your Tom Thumb or his cousin, perhaps - necessary? Gravity works much better without a fixed c, but one in which light slows down in a gravitational field, as Eddington proposed. You mention Hertz - he died too soon without explaining his concept of an electric universe: an ether encompassing both space and matter made of the same stuff - much as in my theory - explaining the Michelson Morely experiments.

        I wish I had your ability to juggle algebraic concepts to beat the physicists at their own game, but I only visualize geometrically.

        Congratulations on your longevity at XC years. May you enjoy happy healthy light-years at C and beyond and see your views vindicated!

        Vladimir

        Dear Thomas,

        I congratulate you on an important and well written essay which I feel should be far higher up the list. However even if near the top I suspect it would be quickly passed over in the judging (I've proved the same for a few years!)

        I also confess to reading your excellent book. I hope you may read and comment on my own essay which I'm sure you'll agree with, (watch the socks carefully) not to mention the 'quasi classical' QM solution of the last two essays and here; https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2 I'd be honoured if you could give any suggestions re the maths.

        One last point of agreement on the LT. I've found that ALL findings can be adequately reproduced by the asymptotic non-linear physical effects of plasma and light interactions approaching 'optical breakdown' mode plasma (max) density, equivalent to min wavelength at gamma. A short paper on that is here; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation. Of course all believe that maths is enough so editors won't touch it and it's been entirely ignored. PFC.

        Very well done and I hope my score gives a boost.

        Peter

        5 days later

        'He sounded forth the trumpet that never called retreat. His will goes marching on.'*

        Thanks Tom,

        I really enjoyed your lovely essay and your wonderful way with words. And it's good to have living proof that a life of whistle-blowing and dissidence produces little impairment to the writing faculties of the wise. Indeed, why should it!

        And though your technical subject matter is not part of my current focus (and we likely disagree in places), yet I can wholeheartedly endorse your writing in praise of experimentalists: a battle-hymn for such.

        In my own case, I felt compelled to study Bell's theorem: in that I wanted to support some brilliant experimental work and some ancient (fundamental) physical concepts. For, in my view, the interpretation of the results was totally befuddled by the dominant theoreticians -- who, incidentally, often befuddled each other.

        I could not see how it became possible for experimentalists to accept that any part of their experiments were anything other than local; or (worse) that any part of their equipment and/or results were somehow unreal. Yet they did, as I read them: totally abandoning local-realism (properly defined)!

        Thus (absent your way with words), my dissident essay shows theoretically that a fundamental probability relation must hold in practice. And it inevitably does. (Jump to paragraph #6.1 in my essay for some associated words.)

        Yet it is the one (well-known) probability relation that theoreticians, following Bell, misunderstand and reject in all the Bellian studies known to me. To wit:

        P(AB|X) = P(A|X)P(B|XA) = P(B|X)P(A|XB).

        PS: When theoreticians reject a formula that should always appear in the results, and it does: there's sure to be mystery somewhere!

        C'est la vie! C'est la guerre!

        With thanks again for your stimulating essay, and with best regards;

        Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

        * The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

        2 months later

        Dear Tom,

        You were not able to respond to my post during the essay competition but I have been making references to your essay on the general blog. I will appreciate your criticism on the attached. Six pages only. I hope I can benefit from some criticism/ advice.

        Thanks and regards,

        Akinbo

        *I post the abstract below.

        You may reply here or to: taojo@hotmail.com

        =========================================================================

        Abstract: Absurdities arising from Einstein's velocity-addition law have been discussed since the theory's formulation. Most of these have been dismissed as being philosophical arguments and supporters of Special relativity theory are of the opinion that if the math is not faulted they are ready to live with the paradoxes. Here, we now demonstrate a mathematical contradiction internal to the theory itself. We show that when applied to light there is no way to mathematically reconcile the Einstein velocity-addition law with the second postulate of the theory which may have a fatal consequence.

        ==========================================================================Attachment #1: 1__Shorter_version__Application_of_the_velocity-addition_law_to_light_itself.pdf

        Write a Reply...