Plasma Tubes in the Sky

Georgina and Akinbo,

Thanks for the references, Georigina, I had perused the British Geo link and it goes to the Q vs. C question of:

Akinbo,

Good question if you are in for the long haul, because QM and Classical clash over what a field of any sort might be. I'll address the classical.

If we hypothesize a single material particle exhibiting a field which operates continuously from an electrical conductivity through a magnetic domain, both of which characteristic phenomenon each operate with a polarity in equal and opposite measure, and embedded in a unidirectional gravitational domain, all of those characteristic effects operating in accord with inverse square law; we might conclude as Faraday did that our hypothesis resolves from that full volume of field being a physical extension of the particle in a real material sense. That is the Unified Field famously sought by Einstein and many others.

Given that hypothesis, there is no physical boundary between the intensity at any chosen point in the field and a greater or lesser intensity at another chosen point. It changes as a smooth variation in a continuous physical function. So a line of force is very much like an isobar on the weather map, it is a continuous line of demarcation of a chosen measured value of intensity of whichever characteristic force effect is being plotted. But that can only be theoretical due to our limitations on experimental verification. We can not at the present, isolate and measure a single material particle.

In aggregate, the classical paradigm still lacks a rationale and conceptual rendering of how those distinct characteristic force effects can meld together and expand into a volume of an inertial frame envelope producing the ionosphere and magnetosphere and gravitational domain, while remaining discretely interactive with free particles and EMR. On the short haul, that is such a load that it was dropped in favor of the ad hoc, dice & slice methodology of Quantum Mechanics.

So in the whole earth catalog of aggregate effects, we might say that a magnetic line of force is an isobar of aggregate effect intensity as arbitrarily measured, and that spikes of intensity variation are anomalies of concentrations of particulate matter having a range of high magnetic moment inherent to a variety of isotopes.

I hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much, but its the best of my understanding in brief. jrc

Georgina,

I know a woman whom all called 'Georgi' since high school, and her husband was an acquaintance also. Both are unpretentious, self-reliant, hard working and conscientious. Back then there was a Pop song 'Georgi Girl' that was light, lively and encouraging of young women to become all that they were capable being and wanting. So If I slip and address you in a presumed familiarity, treat it as a form of endearment.

My thanks for the references are in an aside to Akinbo, but beyond that as to your criteria which I noted has an IFF quality to it, and as might be relevant to your ponderings of SR; complex analysis is called *complex* because it employs imaginary (only by definition in mathspeak) numbers but can be applied to your illustration of the observer dependence in relation to the aspect of the cup. I prefer 'illustration' to analogy because correctly an analogy means a 1 to 1 correspondence, an analog. Here goes;

Say you cut an orange in half, three times at mutual right angles. Now you have 8 equal segments of a sphere. Stuck back together, if you want to measure from one octant into another octant, you have to correlate the point in each octant to its respective x,y,z axes. But there is nothing upside-down and backwards to the temporal spatial relationship between those two points like you would find if the line of sight went through a lens at midpoint. So the non-commutative algebra of Quaternions was devised to say if you designate your start of measure in octant 'A' then in the other octant what would be displaced from the x axis is transformed to a displacement off one of the others depending on which direction you rotate your measurement scheme, and if its in an octant that your scheme designates as in the opposite hemisphere, then it operates as a negative (imaginary number) and that prescribed axis that would otherwise be x is now z but = 'i'. Yeah, I know. There's got to be a better way. Especially if your proportion of measurement is a quotient because while you can multiply by zero and only need 4 transforms, you can't divide by zero and so need 8 transforms known as Octonions or 'division rings'. But! it's okay! because all you have to do is pick your intial point and that sets which ring, or 4x4 matrix chart, you use throughout all computations. Those axis transforms correlate to an * if and only if * criteria from the initial point of observation.

But so do your definitions of qualitative designated reality. Light intersecting light suffers no interference and doesn't slow it down, but the refractive index of a medium through which it may or may not pass, does. What emerges from your criteria is (at first blush) consistent with the physics of 'just because we don't observe the light bouncing off it due to our distance or position, doesn't mean it's not physically part of the visible universe'.

Glass is silicon and is transparent to light, but the spark plug wires in your car are actually not wire at all, but long strands of silicon insulated by spongy silicon. And so opague that the high voltage electromagnetic pulse carried by the strand is shielded sufficiently by the molecular arrangement in the insulation sheath that in all likelihood the low millivoltage from the engine control computer that operates the 'step' motor of the idle air control valve is carried in a wiring harness that rubs up against the distributor or plug wires. IFF. :-) jrc

Dear John,

rest assured I am not offended by any variants of my name.I have just chosen to use my given name as it was given.

You have given me lots to think about. Describing an unobserved object is a bit tricky because the description involves imposing coordinates. As you mentioned using quaternions there is this and that hemisphere whereas the unseen object itself is entirely indeterminate. An observer is required to designate front and back. (A manifestation of it can be seen from the observer designated front and the unseen back is not part of the manifestation.) Right now I'd like to dig a mathematical hole and throw the substantial object in orientation undecided. That obviously needs more thought : )

With regard to Image reality it really is emergent. The substantial source objects are in the environment and EM radiation emitted or scattered from the objects is in the environment but the images really aren't until they are produced. Taking the very simple example of a single lens producing an image at its focal point. The image comes into being when the EM radiation is re-collected from its dispursed condition. It isn't that there are multiple images of the source object in the environment, there is only the potential for them to be formed. Which image is formed depends upon where the lens is situated in regard to the EM potential sensory data and hence also the source objects.

Image realities being emergent can be regarded as a different facet of reality to Source objects and EM potential sensory data. They are not a part of the foundational (Object) reality but having been fabricated must still be within that foundational reality while being distinct from it. The image formed on the retina of an observers eye and then mapped to the visual cortex and then perceived is not the external reality. It is distinct from the source objects in the external environment having been fabricated from a limited sub set of potential sensory data that may have taken different lengths of time to arrive.

Acknowledging the role of that emergent reality gives a new perspective on Relativity and how time can (appear to) pass differently for different observers etc.

I have taken a look at IFF logic. I certainly can write some if-then statements but I will need to spend a bit more time thinking about the two way logic and how it applies. I think the (sometimes)being in foundational reality while not being the foundational reality is an interesting new kind of logical, ?mathematical structure.

Georgina,

Believe it or not, I have been able somewhat to follow your argument of substantial versus emergent reality and your perspective of Relativity(s). And it bears reminding oneself that Einstein himself felt saddled with the term and reiterated that what was relative, was simultaneity. His argument was that the Newtonian concept in Descartes orthogonal co-ordinate system, of a shoebox filled with identical cubical child's alphabet blocks representing absolute space and time, did not necessarily follow from simultaneity. Rather it is the (any) observer whom with the mathematics of the SR measurement methodology, whom could pinpoint two events at separation, as being simultaneous regardless of whether the event in block A was at a point in A's inertial domain where the rate of time was the same as at the point of the event in the Z block.

Too much emphasis on the 'revolutionary idea', is given this single element of *Relativity* that all relativistic thought has become attributed to him. And the whole scope of intellectual movement of his era has become largely ignored. And that itself has hindered the advance of classical, continuous causality in the quest for a complete theoretical rationale to explain how individual particle field domains in aggregate, meld together into and expanded volume of an inertial, self-limiting gravitational domain within which magentic, electrical and ballistic response all behave identically independent of scale.

As Akinbo asked; What is a magnetic line of force.

It is an isobar of arbitrarily chosen, measured intensity of magnetism which can be plotted as a graphical line. At the scale of a background independent, theoretical free rest mass material particle, the plot would be expected to be spherically symmetrical and no physical boundary would exist between any such arbitrarily chosen line. That intensity can be easily argued to be a functional property of the rate at which time progresses as has been experimentally corroborated, and intensity variation thus being a difference in rate of time.

In that hypothetical context, is true reality, the Universe in Newton's shoebox?

Breaktime for this Bozo, jrc :-)

Hi John,

it would be really helpful for me if you could explain why you have said that you have followed my arguments "somewhat". What is it that makes it difficult or problematic? Is it perhaps that I use a number of words interchangeably for the foundational reality, foundational, substantial, Object and likewise the emergent reality, emergent, fabricated, Image? Or is it something else I have not made clear? By the way thanks for mentioning IFF logic, it is something I am going to look into some more.

There is non simultaneity of events because of how the different observers are receiving the potential sensory data, from which their present experiences are fabricated. It is non simultaneity of the emergent Image realities occurring within uni-temporal( wholly simultaneous ) Object reality. This two level structure of reality allows non simultaneity of experience but simultaneity at the foundational level of object and particle interactions. That can be imagined as a singular causality front, the where and when new arrangements come into being, rather than events occurring that are scattered in time. I have not been arguing against any method of transforming one observer perspective to another. If the mathematics works, and it seems from what I have read that most think it does, then it doesn't need fixing. Unlike the paradoxes, which indicate something is very wrong with the model but are made intuitive and non paradoxical or irrelevant/non applicable with the explanatory framework I have developed.

Re. What you have explained to Akinbo. The different intensities being different times seems strange to me. I haven't come across this before but if what you say is correct it can only apply to an Image reality. In reply to your question no the shoe box concept alone is inadequate but it would possibly be consistent with two 'level' reality, which could be put into the shoe box- if you really wanted that. I've only said possibly because this is unfamiliar and so I have some skepticism about the different times explanation, the theory that is.

Georgina,

Please excuse me for a couple days before I reply. It takes me a bit of time always to sort out how others express their ideas, and while your two level approach is similar to the way arguments in SR are laid out, coming from the postulate of Constant Light Velocity (or often: CSL), the choice of words you use is unfamiliar to common usage in conventional physics. Here let me add that unconventional ideas while abundant are not necessarily crank, but are best presented in the conventions of meaning of terms. And, yes, where you find it necessary to express a new idea (I've had several myself which I found were only so to me) by a different usage than conventionally, or coin a new word or phrase, by all means stick with just one term and only elaborate on it where context might not seem instructive enough. (That's my mother, the Managing Editor, speaking.)

Let's talk of time later. There's no end of it. ;-) jrc

John ,

thank you very much for taking time to consider what I have written. I haven't previously been made aware of the lack of sufficient conventional formality in what I write. I have it seems possibly been mistaken in thinking that I have been communicating effectively. It sounds like plain English to me but I have been saying these kinds of things for years and perhaps am so accustomed I am oblivious to their obscurity and ambiguity. I have tended to use several different descriptive terms for the different facets of reality hoping that the alternatives will help clarify what is meant by the different Object reality and Image realities; and each new reader is unfamiliar with what they are/are not. Using the kind of formal logic you have pointed to may be a way of overcoming some of the obscurity and ambiguity, and so I will try working with that. There are a couple of diagrams at the end of my essay that I entered this year, which may or may not be helpful in ascertaining my intended meanings. I look forward to your feedback.

Georgina,

Just briefly because I have mundane matters to attend, and which I find helpful because focusing my attention on things that don't take much, keeps me from interfering with what's sorting itself out in my head.

Since the quantum revolution began there has been an explosion of exotic theorizing, which makes pinning down conventional terminology pretty tough, and it does pay to refresh on the fundamentals of pre-relativistic classical mechanics. It was very much, mechanical. And that makes it very attractive to some because of its intuitive simplicity. Yet at the origin of both divergent branches in modern physics are the conclusive results of Newtonian physics, as well as the unanswered questions which still haven't been addressed. And those include; what is real as to what emerges as an appearance of reality.

I see text I'm typing by virtue of light emitted from the screen of my laptop, but I don't see the keyboard itself, just the light bouncing off it. :-) jrc

Hi John,

Briefly so as not to distract. We don't see substantial objects themselves or the EM radiation (potential sensory data) itself. They are parts of Object reality. Unless you have a very shiny keyboard that leads to production of an image of light bouncing off of it, I would say you are not seeing light bouncing off of it. Instead you are seeing the image of a keyboard produced from the processing of the received EM radiation. That image is an emergent Image reality. It would not exist were it not for the receipt and processing of the EM radiation. Close your eyes and it, the image, does not exist. In contrast to the unseen substantial object keyboard that exists whether it is perceived or not. That being part of the foundational Object reality, not emergent from EM radiation processing. This scenario is comparable to the simple single lens system mentioned previously. The Source object is the substantial keyboard and the image at the focal point is an emergent Image reality keyboard. We do not see objects we see images of them, that could be described as limited fixed state manifestations.

Hi John, All,

I have learnt a new physics word. "Collimated" A convex lens will collimate the uncollimated light, which is then focused. Which is what I should have said rather than the light is re-collected by the lens. It is essentially straightening all of the light paths which are somewhat divergent due to the scattering of the light, and then focusing them. Without collimation and focusing there is no real image, it does not exist; but the potential to be formed is within the environment, that I am calling, in that regard, the electromagnetic data pool.

The image emerges when the processing of the EM is carried out by the lens. Hence the (real) image reality is emergent from the receipt and processing of the EM radiation. Since the human visual system is also reliant upon convex lenses the (real) images produced on the retinas and mapped to the visual cortex are also emergent, as is the output perceived. Making all of the observed present, what is seen, or output from a device such as a camera, emergent reality. Distinct from the external reality of Source objects and environment replete with electromagnetic potential sensory data.

That it is an emergent reality output of processing and not present in the external environment is significant and different from the idea that events and objects themselves are spread within a space-time continuum. (It overcomes the Grandfather paradox). The differentiation of Object (substantial )reality from Image (emergent)reality is pertinent to physics especially the understanding of time, Relativity and physics built upon it.

Steve,

ditto. jrc

Steve, John,

thank you. I realize now that what I wrote was ambiguous. I meant to imply there are two processes; the light is collimated and then focused. I didn't mean it is focused by collimation. I'm not even sure if collimation is necessary or useful in this context. I'm thinking that the light collimated by the first surface of the lens (facing the object) and then refracted into focus at the other side of the lens. Should I just say refracted into focus, not mentioning collimation, rather than re-collected? I ask because John has urged that I learn and use correct physics terms.

Steve the collimated light (potential) image is interesting. Is it correct to call it a virtual image as you do because unlike the virtual image of a convcave lens it can't actually be seen without the laser processing or other further processing? If it is the correct term then it is not differentiating its difference from the other kind of seeable virtual image, which is unhelpful and thus inadequate. The image distance is infinite for collimated light, so it seems to me only a potential image not a virtual image.

Re. Not separate events. An instance of time in which the photon,within that time extends from emitter through lens and to receiver reminds me of a long exposure photograph in which extended images of people can be seen joining stationary images of objects. It makes the presumption that things exist extended within time rather than just having an imagined temporal persistence of form. Even if not perceivable due to the very short time there is a causal sequence.

I suppose I might say the separation of Object and image is not necessarily temporal they can exist within the same chosen time interval.Under usual circumstances the separation is spatial, though it could be contrived that an image of the object is projected onto the object. There is most importantly metaphysical separation into different facets of reality. The Object exists independently of EM radiation processing. The Image requires receipt and processing of EM radiation for its existence. The emitter is the source Object reality the lens is the reality interface and the screen is showing the output Image reality. Temporally separated or not, the image is emergent and does not exist anywhere unless the processing is carried out that brings it into existence. Remove or cover the lens and the image ceases to exist but the Object does not. The object is foundational reality, the image is emergent reality.

In standard optics terminology, a virtual image is one that you need a lens project onto a surface as a real image. Since our eyes have lenses, the images that we see are called virtual because it is the lens that makes a real image on a retina. Light from distant objects is nearly collimated and that light carries virtual images.

Light rays can be diverging, collimated, or converging and there is a simple way to think about a compound lens. The first lens collimates the diverging rays of an object into a virtual image, and the final lens refocuses the collimated light of the virtual image into a real image on a surface. The ratios of the focal lengths then determines the magnification or reduction of the image of the object.

Refraction is what happens to light inside of transparent objects like lenses and so it is correct to say that a lens refracts light into an image. However, usually we say that a lens focuses a virtual image into a real image.

Light connects us to objects much more than we typically think and emissions and therefore a photon can easily be longer that the few nanoseconds that separate us from an object a few feet away.

Hi Steve,

A virtual image is an image that appears where no light rays have actually reached. Where light appears to have come from although it has not. Such as the image formed by a concave lens or a plane mirror. It can not be displayed on a screen. So to avoid confusion the mere potential of the light to form an image, with subsequent processing, should have a different name. Prior to processing it isn't an image real or virtual image( as in the kinds mentioned above)only potential to be formed into one. So it shouldn't be called an image. Sorry Steve if that is the correct use of the terminology I think it is misleading. Something should not be called what it is not.

We shouldn't make this more complex than it really is. If you hold up a white card, no images appear on that card from a scence, but all of the light from all of the virtual images of the scene do reach and illuminate the card. The images are there encoded in the light, and so those images are called virtual.

In fact, each spot on the card will project real images of a scene as a pinhole camera without any lens or further processing. The image information is all there, but scrambled up and blurred.

A lens in front of the card captures an aperture of light and forms a real image from that aperture's virtual image. Optics calls an image virtual when all of the light rays are there, but are scrambled and incoherent and therefore blurred. An image is real when it looks like the objects that we look at directly. All of the light rays are present for both virtual and real images. In fact, when we capture a virtual image as a hologram, there is actually much more information encoded as both amplitude and phase than just the light intensities of a real image.

Hi Steve,

I'm not trying to complicate matters. I have not yet found a source article in which incoherent light or collimated light is referred to as a virtual image or said to be containing virtual images. Which I would like to see in order to verify what you have told me. Perhaps you could link one. It seems to me to call the electromagnetic radiation itself a virtual image would be confusing and misleading as virtual image has other meanings in physics. The radiation unprocessed in some way is not an image or images but a carrier of the potential to form images. Images are the output.

A virtual image appears where light paths seem to be coming from, even though the light hasn't come from there. Such as when it is reflected or re-emitted from the reflective surface of a mirror, and the image appears to be inside the mirror or when divergent light paths from a concave lens produce an image at a point where the light did not emanate from. Virtual image from concave lens In holography a virtual image is one seen inside the film and a real image one that seems to protrude out beyond the film. Still referring to images and not mere potential.

You are correct that virtual image has many different uses and not just with refractive images. Wiki has virtual image and real image and the optics page has more detail on virtual images as well as ray tracing. I am surprised that you were not able to find that information since it is a very common usage in geometrical optics.

Once again, every point of a virtual image carries the information of a real image, just dimmer, and a lens simply brings all of those points into the same real image. We cannot see a real image projected onto our cornea, which becomes a blurred virtual image at our retina by the action of our lens, but all of the same light rays are coming into our eye.

I am not sure why this virtual/real image thing messes up your uni time. We also sense objects with touch, smell, taste, and sound and none of these issues with light impact our other sensations.

Hi Steve,

the Wikipedia page about virtual images talks about them in the context I have used not as being the unprocessed light or collimated light. If you meant a different page then perhaps you could link it or give me the URL.

It is important to me for 2 reasons. One reason is that John said I must learn and use conventional physics terms. In which case I must learn how they are correctly used. If the light is called an image then that is not differentiating carrier from output and I have a problem with that. It may be what is said but it isn't right. The other issue is my assertion that images are emergent reality that don't exist in the external environment until there is some kind of processing that makes the image appear. That processing could be by a lens, a simple camera, the human visual system as examples. The image has to be produced. If however the light is considered to be an image, rather than having mere potential be formed into an image, that image is a part of the unprocessed Object reality, which messes up the emergent argument. I think either you are incorrect about the term or conventional physics is incorrect in its use of the term. Evidence of the use of the term virtual image for light, rather than output image, would show that you are correct about that usage.

Anonymous replied on Jun. 21, 2015 @ 23:03 GMT, is me,

kind regards Georgina