What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light? by AVTAR SINGH

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Singh,

Well written essay. I appreciate the large amount of work you have shown in the essay. You reflect on relativistic and rest mass for C. Though some of the content were out of my qualification, I almost followed every part clearly and as far as I could understand.

Meanwhile, I wanted to ask a question on General Relativity since you are an expert in the field.(this question is not related to your essay).

I know that photon is also affected by the gravitational field. But how much force or gravity does it produce by itself? I mean like earth have some gravitational force of its own, how much photons have? Is there any calculation done to deduce the exact answer?

I invite you to read my essay: Is Mathematics Fundamental?

Kind Regards

Ajay Pokharel

Dear Dr. Singh,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your grasp of the topic is impressive and your essay is the most intelligent one I have read so far.

You pose a very good question "How a photon emitted from a stationary (V=0) surface spontaneously accelerates to the speed of light as it travels thru empty space?" And I completely agree with your assertion, that the speed of light "represents a universal fundamental constant of

conservation of mass-energy". In fact, I made the exact same assertion in my essay "A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness". My reasoning is a bit different though. I proposed a simple relational model (The Space-Time-Motion or STM model) that shows motion as a fundamental process, with space (S) and time (T) as being nothing more than measurable quantities that provide scales that allow us to develop relationships. As such S=Tc^2 is exactly the same relation as E=mc^2 and in both cases, c is simply the factor that relates the units of measurement.

I've taken a sort of inside-out perspective, from which I reason that the speed of light is constant because it is literally the fundamental constant - the only thing that is not moving. Everything physical in the universe is moving relative to something else. But the speed of light is not relative to its source, which makes no sense if light were actually moving. Do we actually measure the speed of light... or would it be more correct to say that we measure the speed at which darkness recedes? Isn't that what happens when we expand our awareness through measurement, and bring information into our consciousness?

I would greatly appreciate if you would read my essay and let me know where I went wrong (or how I might better explain it). I think I have stumbled onto something important and though I'd like to go enjoy my retirement, I feel it gnawing at me to get it right and publish it.

Thank you,

Ted

Dr. Singh,

I would like to contact you regarding your book, The Hidden Factor but couldn't find contact information on Amazon.com. Can you please email me at stjohntheodore@gmail.com.

Thank you

Ted

The link I provided above doesn't work because I left a space in the address. This one should work

"A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John"

I've only received 2 ratings so far so I would really appreciate it if you would read, comment and rate it. I very much respect your opinion.

Thanks

Ted

Dear Avtar Singh

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Dr. Singh,

Very well written, you succinctly lay out the principal gaps in understanding and the compromising positions that keeps people searching for solutions. I found much agreement in your conclusion and implications, and will keep your essay on my list for reference.

Your model of a three dimensional projection of EMR is an intriguing variation of a theme I have had long on a back burner. It does challenge the ad hoc quantum leap and generically addresses the Transition Zone. In particular I am in agreement with you that energy density varies inversely to velocity, and looked to see if you had incorporated a postulate anyway similar to my own; that what differentiates a closed inertial domain must directly relate to the entire quantity of energy, for inertia to translate throughout the whole volume. What I had rationalized was that some (small) portion of total energy quantity must exist at a density in the proportion of c^2. ( This was back in the day when I could go to the parts store and ask Paul for a couple feet of sparkplug wire and he'd ask if I wanted copper or the new carbon filament.) I wasn't cherry picking at the time, it was more like 'found objects', I was so ignorant and mathless I didn't even know there was a cherry orchard. I had simply assumed that if e=mc^2, then that implied a equivalent proportionate density that would be the highest density a rest masse of energy would need to be. And it does provide a means to hypothesize a core volume at constant density as a seed finite quantity, to protract a field volume of continuous density variation through density ranges of primary force effects limiting at a theoretical lower density bound. Try it if you like. I've invited others to do so including Doc Klingman. Gotta be more then one way to let Schrodinger's cat out of the bag.

I also find general agreement with you on the subject of C, as well as your take on Relativities. Density might well be able to tell a small enough mass if its moving or not, but a light speed acceleration/deceleration event would necessitate a peak periodic velocity in excess of C. In some ways its like a 'root mean square'. And time dilation doesn't mean time stops at light velocity, it means that particular light speed energy entity, is going as fast as time can go. And that means its own inertial domain constituent energy need not and cannot be in motion, solving the problem of lightening speed occurring at what should be a zero boundary condition. I just differ in thinking it would then seek its rest configuration to preserve its inertial cohesion, and become cyclic. But there's ticklish spots on that Achile's heel, too.

What I noticed conspicuously absent in your brief metaphysical description, was as to how your homogeneous energy photon conveys spectral lines. Doppler shift would not be distinguishable without them, the spectrum would look no different than that of a stationary prism and stationary source. Did I miss that or was it edited out for essay length constraints?

I appreciated your referencing cosmological investigations and results, I don't attempt such excursions. Like the final scene in Men In Black, "They're beautiful, you know. The Stars." Best Wishes and thanks for the effort, yours was one of my most enjoyable reads. jrc

Dear Avtar,

I hope you will read my essay again, as I do not believe you have understood its potential significance for your work. You dismiss it because you say your photon model depends on special relativity, as it matches the observed universe expansion data. But that is not based on the relativity of simultaneity as you imply. Cosmic microwave background on which all cosmology models are based is essentially Machian, and time is considered absolute with respect to this background. So contradicting "the relativity of simultaneity" does not seem relevant, as it is not involved in cosmological 'universe expansion' models. My impression is that you reached this point and decided not to go further. This is unfortunate, as Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations address the problem you address, but as "disturbances in the ether", with implied local energy density. Moreover, the recent observation of colliding neutron stars has demonstrated that gravitational disturbances propagate at the same speed as electromagnetic disturbances in the field. There is no "acceleration time" involved!

This Hertzian extension of Maxwell's theory envisions energy flow in a body, while Maxwell/Einstein envisions energy flow between systems. It seems de facto true that cosmology 'universe expansion' observations concern energy flows within the cosmological frame, not asimultaneous flows between frames. (When one frame is the universe, what is the other frame?)

The problem here for your model, is that there is no acceleration. As soon as a disturbance occurs in the field, it immediately propagates at the speed of sound (the generic term for perfect fluid models) - no acceleration.

The significance for you is that this lack of acceleration required to reach speed c implies that light never has value v < c. Of course you refer to recent experiments in which light impinges on a semiconductor material and is absorbed, whence it photons become 'excitons'. In my opinion, such interactions are phonon-like, not pure photons, and are more likely explained as many-body phenomena, rather than pure photons. Of course I may be wrong, there is not enough information to determine this yet. If the phenomenon is essentially one of absorption and re-emission then formulas with the inverse square root of (1-(v/c)**2) are undefined. These are in most of your equations, since you seem to conceive of local 'photon' mass density as a material body, instead of the equivalent mass density of the disturbance in the field. The v-based equations for the photon are inappropriate in the Hertzian framework, which you seem not to have understood in my essay. In spite of this, and for reasons too long to include in a comment, I do find your Postulate 1 on page 5 to be is very astute and appropriate to the problem. It is that which first excited me about your essay.

Some readers, as soon as anything contradicts the received wisdom from Einstein, quit thinking, and dismiss all following information. That is unfortunate. There are a least a dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics, yet all deliver essentially the same calculations. Why should one recoil from a second interpretation of relativity, one that retains the Lorentz equations, but interprets them in terms of energy-time asymmetry, not space-time symmetry?

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Avtar,

Yes, I gave your essay a highest public rating I presume qualified to give as an amateur, the day prior to my comment. I did not submit an essay myself, I'm not quite there yet. Good Luck.

Good to know. I think that the shape of the photon is critical to the kinetic translation of its energy, it would go to the rate of change on the slope of a curve which influences strength of electromagnetic induction or rate of ballistic transfer of momentum (not even light stops instantaneously). The arguments about c+v omit that frequency is not independent of wave number of which we have no experimental means to count. For equivalence of wave (photon) number in relation to frequency, to be constant with light velocity, there must be some physical attribute of the wave/photon that makes absorption lines distinguishable as number while the Doppler shift moves the whole spectrum blue-ward or red-ward. I stick with wavelength as a measurement tool, regardless of discrete photons modeling, because it provides means of quadraticly projecting shape that would correspond with observation. I go with a orthogonal length contraction limiting at a covariant c proportion in the direction of motion and a corresponding expansion orthogonally to give a diametric cross-section taken as the amplitude of A = (f/c)^1/2. With an arbitrary benchmark of spherical at 1 centimeter wavelength it produced a prolate spheroid at greater than 1cm and oblate spheroid at lesser than 1cm, and a constant parametric volume across the spectrum consistent with a Planck Quanta e=hf. Not to piggy-back on your article, but as reason for physical shape's importance. Its my principle objection to the QM nondefined particle, it can only be assumed that QM decoheres a spherical photon. I'm going to want to get a new calculator and get back into this, and acesss some of your detailed analysis and that of Klingman, Kadin and others. I don't need people to agree with me to learn a little from them, and appreciate your reply. Thanks - jr

Prof. Tejinder Sing:

You are an excellent writer!

"We shall define `fundamental' as the process by which the human mind

converts Things into Laws."

You are, of course, correct, as far as the prevailing human culture goes. Unfortunately, such "fundamental laws" have been steadily changing, whether meant for social engineering or nature engineering, without knowing where we are going. Although, we can claim that we have been advancing.

However, as an experimental physicist, I have defined "fundamental" as follows:

"Physicists have been searching for the fundamental building blocks and the fundamental laws that govern the universe since ancient times. I will define those sets of building blocks and those sets of laws of interactions as fundamental, which are minimum in number and yet models and explains the maximum number of observable phenomena."

Chandra.

Avtar,

Thanks for your comments on my string, though it was all about your own essay. I won't follow suit but hope you'll also get to properly read and analyse mine.

I judge yours a good essay, well written and explained at around the right level, though the propositions demanded more (which I know you provide elsewhere). I agreed with all the fundamental analysis and identification of wide shortcomings, anomalies and inconsistency under current theory.

You propose some novel, original and interesting solutions, well explained though not falsified. As an astronomer also working on optics, plasma, plasmonics etc and wide analyses of the vast data stream we now have, to similar ends, I don't find all your assumptions consistent, but we must explore all possible hypotheses, and indeed 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria. So some questions;

1. You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized. Are you aware that in quantum optics Huygens construction is the only coherent paradigm, explaining re-quantisation at the Schrodinger sphere plane wave surface interactions, i.e. with fermions. I can just see how your model may be made to fit that but only with changes, i.e. 'excitons' would be the requantized energy before spreading, unless focussed into a helical beam structure. Can you see another way of gaining consistency with optics?

2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?

3. You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).

4. You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities.

None the less I think your essay is of high quality and I look forward to discussing the science further, of both on both our strings.

Very best.

Peter