John-Eric,

That's a very original approach, and I agree we should test all options. Indeed I have no issue with the 'sub-matter' medium being particulate as it must be discrete 'vortices' (motion) to exist at all! However it's not condensed 'matter' at that smaller scale so needs differentiation.

And we mustn't forget the 'transverse' wave quality of light, so fluctuations over all 3 axes as it translates. So is the helical path of a 3D orbit a 'wave' or a 'particle'! It certainly travels as a wave of increasing circumference but must be made 'particulate' by any interaction. I also posted the response below on my string;;

..

There's also a simpler way to test if 'destructive interference' is real. Move the back board of a 2 slit or similar interferometer experiment slightly forward or rearward. The light fringes become dark and vice versa. Huygens construction helps rationalise but modern quantum optics does even better.

The 'build up' of 'single photon' events to a fringe pattern does however also show the retained 'particulate' characteristic on interaction ('requantization'). Richard Feynman thought 'duality' was just confusion, but things are now far less confused.

(I'm sure the '1' applied to mine at the time of your last post wasn't you John-Eric.)

Very best

Peter

Peter Jackson

Thanks for mail.

I agree with Feynman that wave or particle in confusion is just an evidence that we do not understand light. The fact that fringes changes over the surface means that they should change in transverse direction as well. I think that your simple test is not a certain evidence.

Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

    John-Eric,

    It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.

    Best

    Peter

    Peter Jackson

    Of course the pattern changes when you rotate the equipment, but that does not prove how it changes when you move the detector. You cannot prove light to exist in light. You know that there is transverse fields, but you cannot know if there is a longitudinal field.

    Regards John-Erik Persson

    John-Eric, (copied)

    I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.

    Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).

    The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?

    Best

    Peter

    Peter Jackson

    3 dimensions. Longitudinal and one transverse must change. This does not prove energy to move inside the wave fronts. We do not know energy to even exist in light. The 2 transverse fields can represent information (potential forces) that later become real forces, when light hits the charge we use as detector. At that moment energy comes from the ether.

    John-Erik Persson

      John-Erik, I can agree the following; (also re your post on Josephsons and mine)

      1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.

      2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.

      3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.

      4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.

      You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.

      Best

      Peter

      Peter Jackson

      You said: Energy is found when interaction is done with light. However, this does not prove that the energy is provided by the light. It can also be provided by the ether. Light can be without energy.

      John-Erik Persson

      5 days later

      Greetings John-Erik, | I have started to read your essay, because I notice from the abstract and comments that there is some similarity to ideas I presented at FFP15 which are partly summarized in my current essay, talking about gravitation by condensation. I point out that the various entropic and emergent gravity schemes are equivalent to recent ideas that there is an analogy between the quantum critical point of BEC formation and the event horizons of Schwarzschild black holes, which are purely gravitational massive objects so make a good arena for studying gravity. | The notion of gravitation by condensation also fits well with ether-based gravity models such as what you are describing - though I have not digested that description yet. You would likely find greatly interesting also the Sink Drain model of Bayarsaikhan Choisuren, so I'll include a link to his essay as well. I am using the vertical bar character in place of carriage returns, which a glitch in the FQXi system is turning into the letter n - very annoying! | All the Best, | Jonathan

        Hello again John-Erik...

        I found this essay enjoyable to read, and I am somewhat in agreement with what you are trying to say, but I think there are some exaggerations where for example you say 'proves' when 'shows' or 'may show' would pass without raising an eyebrow. It is wise to learn, in the arena of theoretical Physics, that having a clear explanation for the facts considered does not mean having a better theory which considers all of the known facts. Part of the reason is that many alternate models can explain many pertinent facts, in a field like quantum gravity for example, without there being a single model that is clearly superior to the rest.

        I heard perhaps 40 lectures on different flavors of quantum gravity at GR21, and every speaker talked about important advances being made using their chosen model - and the advantages thereof. Beverly Berger spoke up saying that, and Lee Smolin later reaffirmed that progress would be better served if people found ways to use advances in one model as a springboard for progress in another. That kind of cooperation or collaboration is what I live for or thrive on, because I don't see this whole competing models thing as helpful. But some of your ideas have a rather good pedigree you seem to know nothing about.

        Are you familiar with the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld, which presents Modern Physics concepts in a very ether-centered view, because it was largely written while those ideas were still considered valuable insights rather than a side trip? You should also check out papers by Reg Cahill who wrote "Process Physics," which talk about infalling ether in terms of a fractal vacuum. So what you are referring to is not without merit, nor is it a dead idea, but you are overreaching a bit. I agree that MMX are widely misinterpreted as ruling out the ether hypothesis, but the reason that falls apart is rather technical.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Jonathan Dickau

        It is good to hear that you can agree to so much, since your article is very far from mine. Yes, I agree that I sometimes use too strong words, but English is not my mother language. Yes, different models can give the same predictions.

        I also agree to your statement that more cooperation would be good not only regarding quantum physics, but in physics in general.

        I have not read "Evolution in physics" but I think I will. We should use more process thinking in physics, and I have heard about Cahill's model , but do not know the details. My models is not really an in-falling ether but rather a small reduction in the out flow.

        I will take a second look at your article and see if I can give comments, but this will be difficult since I have no experience from Mandelbot diagrams.

        Thanks for comments and good luck from __________ John-Erik Persson

        (copied reply from mine) John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;

        Vimeo 100 sec video.

        Youtube 100 sec Classic QM.

        As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).

        Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)

        You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?

        Very Best

        Peter

        John

        I can't stand to see your work so low on the rankings, and although I don't have time this minute to explain why, I'm not going to delay giving you a bump in the up direction. I'm looking forward to explaining why I appreciate your work. I will return

        Steven Andresen

          Thank you John-Erik,

          You may find also interesting this paper by Robert Laughlin:

          Emergent Relativity

          It shows somewhat how what I am talking about follows from some subset of the ideas you have adopted, plus one or two of his own assumptions. But you would find very interesting this FQXi web article:

          Ripping apart Einstein

          And these papers referenced therein:

          Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point and

          Extended Horava gravity and Einstein-aether theory

          Gotta get back to work!

          Best JJD

          Hi John

          Your model for light is unique and interesting, and your ability to articulate theory is clear and ledgeable. You have a keen eye for unjustified inferences in science, which is an awareness I wish were more common. For example " light detected as quanta, can be due to the system detecting it, electrons". You give good reasoning's based on observation, "Deconstruction superposition of light, 1+1 doesnt always equal 2". So how can 2 photons exist in a space and be detected as zero? You solve this by assigning a photons prospective energy transfer value to a potential of ether. I understand why this represents an elegant solution.

          I also strongly relate to your falling ether wind hypothesis.

          My theory operates on the premise that atomic forces derive their capacity for force, from the ether field of space. It triggers a one way inflow of ether because the ether is converted to force and extinguished in the process.

          My hypothesis relates a connection between atomic forces and space ether. Your hypothesis also relates an energy potential with space ether.

          These similarities make aspects of your work easy to comprehend. If you choose to read my essay then I hope this convenience extends both ways.

          You have quality reasonings and a quality essay. I rated you top marks

          Best regards

          Steven Andresen

          Jonathan Dickau

          I thank you very much for interesting links. I will read your paper and write on your page.

          John-Erik Persson

          Responding to your message on my page

          Hi John

          Yes there are differences with our concepts, however mine also treats time as a physical process dependent on ether. That the interaction between ether and matter is, ether is converted to atomic force. Providing a tidy fit for Guv = Tuv. The forces are then considered to dictate the rate of causality.

          A guess I do identify with your work in some ways, and this does influence the rating I assign to your essay. But besides them you give an alternative array of good arguments. You give enough of them to leave me and others thinking. At least those of us with open minds and flexible thinking.

          Steve

          Steven Andresen

          Thank you for good support for my ideas. I think we can both agree to the fact we need to regard ETHER and TIME as important fundamental concepts.

          In my opinion we need ABSOLUTE time and no GAMMA factor. Are you prepared to abolish dilation of time?

          Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

          John

          My essay details a distinction, the split personalities of clocks. The front of the clock supposedly measures a property of time, but the clock hands are merely the puppet of the spring behind the clock face that forcefully drives the clock.

          I know you appreciate how common false inferences are. Like people inferring quanta of light, when it could be the detecting electron that imposes that property. In the same respect I hold it as a more accurate depiction that "force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force".

          The depiction "force drives clocks, bUT clocks measier time" is a faulty summation. In this respect time is a man made falicy. The front end of the clock and its superfluous measure of time is useful for planing our day, but it is not a property of physics.

          A better terminology is "rate of causality" and it is atomic forces which dictate it's rate. Photon exchange for example. The clock spring that drives the clock is made of EM forces. There is dilation, but it is not time dilation. It is force dilation, which causes variable rate of causality.

          So specificly about time, time does not exist.

          Steve