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

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

Thank you Avtar...

It's good to encounter you here once again, and to see your kind remarks about my essay. I'll begin reading yours now.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I am reminded that...

We became friends at CCC-2 in Port Angeles, Avtar, where you presented your ideas on how the limited lifetime and decay of protons could explain the excess of background energy that drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. We sat together at the banquet for that event and exchanged stories about our Engineering background and how we got into Physics. Sometimes these chance meetings have afterwards been quite meaningful. At FFP11 in Paris; I sat with Andrew Beckwith, who is also in this contest, and we became friends afterward.

But I am still taken by the sense that people must be dense to rule out the possibility that unbound protons have a limited lifetime, the same as unbound neutrons, and I think it is quizzical. My thought is that the rapid decay of free neutrons is due to the fact that their electrical neutrality is a gauge setting mechanism that requires something positive or negative to be measured against, where the proton is more stable or enduring. But as we have discussed; it too should have a finite duration or half-life - a limited lifetime.

Re-examining the obvious omitted possibility should be mandatory. I will need to read this essay to the end, but the first part seems quite interesting and it reads well. I already know you have something worthwhile to share.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Avtar,

Thank you for the comments you posted on the page for my essay. Thank you also for bringing into the discussion your paper, "A Universal Model Integrating Matter, Mind, & Consciousness Resolves the Hard Problem & Cosmic Conundrum." The following comments refer both to that paper and of course to your essay for the present contest.

There seems to be an understanding common to both papers that human understanding of reality is still incomplete. Hardly anyone would dispute this. In both essays you mention the fact that currently there is no explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the bulk of what exists within the physical world. It is very interesting that in the essay for this contest you confine the discussion mainly to topics relevant to the physical universe, but in the earlier essay you widen the discussion to include phenomena of consciousness also. I am not sure that I fully understand the relationship between the solution of the strictly physical problems related to the possibility of a mass for the photon and the solution of the other problems which involve consciousness as well as physical phenomena. Perhaps the relationship is in the concept of spontaneity. As you say in the paper on matter, mind, and consciousness, "Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force." This is a useful way of making the connection.

I think that your discussion of experimental results and future empirical tests is a very good step. Sometimes theoretical discussions lose this link to experience. From what you say, it seems that presently available results are encouraging. That is a good sign for the future.

Laurence Hitterdale

Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Avtar,

I cannot pretend to understand the Universal Relativity Model (URM) but can recognize the need for it, and from your past essays, gather the weight and understanding of your approach. Certainly we can agree that "fundamental" is universal, pointing to an ultimate universal reality that is not fragmented. We all look for a ToE that is fundamental, as I mention in my essay. I garner my argument from a more generic definition of fundamental, "that which is necessary for existence." Current mainstream theories -- GR, QFT, BBM do need to unify the dynamics of a mass-energy duality. I believe your work is making inroads in that direction and deserves high marks. Hope you get a chance to check out my essay.

Jim Hoover