Essay Abstract
Our budding physics student takes his hero's Einstein and Feynman's words seriously and sets out to learn a 'new way of thinking' to test if it's our thought processes that limit what's ultimately possible. He finds a voyage of discovery to a new privileged reference frame.
Author Bio
Born Kent 1951 Consultancy & design bureau, architecture, yacht design, aero & hydrodynamics, marine engineering, energy/renewables, fundamental physics research, occasional journalist.
Mr. Jackson,
I have read your essay, but you did not make it easy. Your efforts to be glib and "cute" unfortunately seriously obscure whatever real, underlying message may be contained in your essay. I'd like to see your ideas expressed without all the glibness and cuteness, and maybe with a little less apparent anger at the establishment?
I certainly do agree with two of the points you made. You wrote, "The evidence suggests we've reached a dangerous time in our evolutionary cycle. The ability for WMD production at will, combined with continued warlike tendencies." Yes, absolutely. Evolution has equipped us with brains optimally suited for survival in a hunter-gatherer society, but science has armed us with weapons of mass destruction. A precarious situation indeed. Will wisdom catch up with science before we've undone ourselves? I think the jury is still out on that one.
Elsewhere you wrote, "Forums like the FQXi are the foundation of a fresher approach, a model for review funding and should be central to physics." I agree with you about this, too. If you believe this is true, however, why did you use the forum it provides to take such a glib, "scatter gun" approach in what you wrote rather than offering us a serious, cogent, well-reasoned essay? Just curious.
Pretty well all fair comment Mr Smith. My reasons may not be good from all frames, but;
'Cute'? Sorry, but he genuinely was a pretty cute chap, who always saw humour and irony in the most serious of situations. Glib? There's no space for full analysis of such a fundamental subject in an essay, but it's all sincere.
'Anger'? I tried to be objective, but you're very perceptive. I feel frustrated more than angry, but do feel we'll all have the right to be angry if we get wiped out due to poor physics. But by then it may be a bit too late!
I'm glad you'd like to see the full papers. I'd like everyone to see them and will seek guidance on how to post them here.
'Scatter Gun Approach'. Excellent analogy. After long frustration, this was a 'one shot' chance to get an introduction to what may represent a complete new architecture into print, including basic evidence, plus the genuine conceptual 'way of thinking' background, and making the point that no model is any use if no-one ever inspects it! This needed a shotgun not a rifle.
The essay is written only to whet the palate, to be a little different, to catch attention and arouse interest in the real meal. I know it won't be to many scientists taste, but the main course will be rather more so.
Mr. Jackson,
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, frustration is a better name than anger for what I sensed in your writing, along with a well-read, active intelligence lurking there. Frustration is understandable when we are brimming with ideas that seemingly have no suitable outlet. Good luck with getting a fair hearing for your ideas. This FQXi Community appears to offer a level playing field for new ideas. Perhaps next year's essay competition will be on a topic which would allow you to apply your new architecture and new conceptual way of thinking. In the meantime, keep your powder dry.
JCNS; ..along with a well-read, active intelligence lurking there. Frustration is understandable..
Thanks for your kind and helpful comments. I'm attaching the fuller 'Article' here, which is better explained and evidenced. Your comments would be gratefully appreciated.
Many Thanks
Peter J
*** Please refer to the updated article posted on September 25, 2009 ***Attachment #1: UnificationArticle19.8.pdf
Modeling symmetry as the ultimate law of physics is an interesting proposition. It seems natural and it balances a mathematical equation as well as fulfills our human expectation of confirming that our environment is founded with rational purpose. But, and we all know that this irritates human nature...the pieces never seem to perfectly fit. How many exceptions to the rule are there in physics? Isn't that what fuels the ever expanding search for the ultimate model...the ultimate explanation of all of the exceptions?
What if the universe was the result of a singular creation event that actually created all possible objects, forces and relationships at that initial point in time? What happens next? All possible objects, forces and relationships begin to disappear as they have to successfully coexist within an environment that allows them to survive. And the evolved environment would actually become the result of many other evolved environments. The survival environments would then become the basis for observed rules of survival. Why would we expect the environments and their rules for survival to be the same? Why would we project what happens at the current kitchen table as a necessary result in some other distant environment in both terms of space and time?
And the most important point to me is why would we expect that observing the rules of survival will necessarily lead us to understanding the rules of creation?
Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading your work and I appreciate the fact that it is creative, entertaining and relevantly aware that we all share the human experience.
Mr. Jackson,
Apologies for being slow to respond. You invited me to comment on your longer essay, which I have now finally been able to review. Not being a professional physicist, I am not able to comment intelligently on many of the specific issues you raise in the essay. Commenting in a more general way, however, it appears to me that even this longer essay is too ambitious, trying to cover far too much ground (i.e., addressing far too many topics) in the space of a relatively brief essay. I would recommend narrowing the scope of your thinking to one or two main points and exploring them in detail rather than trying to cover so many points. I applaud you for offering a series of specific predictions at the end of your essay, but, again, I believe that providing a rationale for each of those predictions could form the basis for a series of separate, detailed, narrowly-focused, in-depth essays. I hope this is helpful.
Best,
jcns
I'm glad you found it entertaining Irvon.
But I confirm it was indeed equally deadly serious. The point was not to suggest perfect symmetry but to demonstrate how it is, actually, in reality, achieved, along with unification. My light treatment of the background to finding it seems to have distacted people from the core solution!
Q; "But, and we all know that this irritates human nature...the pieces never seem to perfectly fit. How many exceptions to the rule are there in physics?"
Truly dozens.
Anomolies, inconsistencies and violations abound, and we can't unify Relativity and QFT because we have a few basics wrong. But we don't need to throw out Relativity, just fine tune it, and understand QFT a tiny bit better, using the work of George Stokes and Christian Doppler properly for our model, and we have a Eureka moment, the simple symmetrical solution.
The really magical part is that it fits all the evidence and gets rid of almost all the exceptions and paradoxes above!
If it's too obscurely hidden in the essay try the Article at the foot of the 4th post here.
Thank you graciously for your applause and very useful viewpoint Mr Smith.
The Article was shortened from a 60 page comprehensive paper (exc QGrav) but the subject scope itself was a problem, viz;
Proposing what may be seen as a fundamental paradigm shift requires all relevant parts to be addressed or we get; "yes but it can't be right as it doesn't explain...x.y.z."
Then I have to follow the 'scientific paper' rules for it to be taken seriously, and include; The Problem being addressed (many think there isn't one!), Explanation/Argument, Methodology, Full Evidence, History, Consequences, Conclusions, Predictions. I knew if I left out any aspect it'd be jumped on! (and, to be fair, my target audience is professional theoretical physicists as well as the science educated public).
I understand what you're saying, and am considering taking a tiny aspect for a short 'letter' which could lead to the unfolding of the whole new picture, which really is of fundamental importance to progress, and has uncovered what's termed the 'Holy Grail', the unification of STR and QFT.
But I suppose what I'm also doing is testing my theory on how bad a state the world of physics has got itself into since I started the experiment. I fully expect to be completely ignored and branded a 'crackpot', to prove my hypothesis, but we'll see! (I expect the minimised math will expose the conceptual limitations of many).
Do you think you understood all the basic premises? Just ask if you didn't.
Peter Jackson
Anonymous; "An axiomatic construct is no better than its weakest axiom. All the validation in the world will not protect theory against a single falsification. The human species will not come to an end through attack".
I love your confidence, but that doesn't represent any degree of falsification of the model. Indeed the proposition that we may not survive a disaster isn't falsified iether; There may indeed be catastrophic disasters, natural or man made, where a few percent of us survive, but there can be no proof this will be the case for all possible disasters, such as the total destruction of earth or it's life supporting ecostructure.
The more we find out about the universe the more violent we find it is. Life may be fragile, and, just in case it is, there is an imperative for our most rapid understanding of nature to maximise our survivability. Why should we not do so? Are you relying on god to intercede and save us?
The postulate is that, using Einsteins words; "nature has revealed to us" the answers, and the reason we don't yet understand them is that our thought processes are not yet adequately developed. The actual content of my Article, all inductively proven, exposes the answers and shows the way ahead, if it could only be read, understood and recognised as such. Our inability to do that is our (potentially fatal in the worst case) weakness.
Have you done so?
This is an updated version of the author's article "Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification allowing Relativistic Invariance".Attachment #1: UnificationArticle24.9.9.pdf
Mr Jackson
An essay that is crammed full of thoughtful and insightful challenges to the status quo of 'Physics', and certainly proposes clearly 'What can ultimately be possible in physics'. This may be one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in physics for a century that is if it is acknowledged, however this may not be comfortable to the established Physics community. As you identify a change in mind set will be called for and the ability to acknowledge that the new ways of thought are surely not to discredit what are already taken as accepted truths, but can lead to an expansion and identification of new theories.
Congratulations for this challenge and I would welcome a response as to your thoughts on the continuation of how you will probe deeper into the comfort zone of the 'Physics community'.
"This may be one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in physics for a century that is if it is acknowledged,.."
Thank you for obviously taking the trouble to follow the link and read it. I was beginning to think no-one with any broad knowledge of physics would. You may have disproved my essay postulate that the overdue big breakthrough will not now be recognised. However I'm not convinced 'One swallow doth not a Spring make'. Your comment about the change in mindset needed is perceptive.
"I would welcome a response as to your thoughts on the continuation of how you will probe deeper into the comfort zone of the Physics community"
I don't feel I've probed ANY comfort zones yet, and I'm not sure it's possible. The complacent boney fingered cries of 'crackpot' now hit all, evidenced or not. A man can discover the Holy Grail, stand and hold it aloft and cry out (and Email!) the truth and evidence, but the self preoccupied masses will now completely ignore both him and the grail itself. I thank you for taking that sip and recognising it. Please pass it on, (and any advice is welcome). The Article is now posted on http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047
Peter Jackson
I've come across an astonishingly incisive and pertinent quote from Einsteins '52 paper to solidly support the model;
"..there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought.
"Relativity and the Problem of Space." Albert Einstein (1952) English translation published 1954
This has now eventually 'played a considerable role' in (my) scientific thought and, with the advantages of space exploration, has now lead to the answer he was searching for.
It must now also play a role in others.
Why has everyone gone quiet out there!!??
Peter J
Not only a brave essay, telling us truths many won't want to hear, but the paralell message is seemingly dressed as just 'an example' but really isn't is it! I've just read your linked article twice, and realised it really is the major fundamental breakthrough we've all been waiting for! After SR I'm sure Minkowski said something like 'from now we don't have space but limitless numbers of spaces' long befor Einsteins similar comments. They never did link that with the Fresnel Stokes work. How obvious - I can't believe we missed it, solving so many anomalies, and what perfect symmetry!
How self interested most of us are, not recognising, maybe not even reading, the content. You're right. Things need to change. I wonder how long it will take, if it's not too late already! BUT;
Just one area in your DFM 'model' you don't seem to cover. The quantum mechanism for the phase transition at the shocks. I suspect you may have an answer but didn't want to add further content, - but it really has to be addressed.
It's a shame you slightly camaflaged the content, but I see why, and it's even more shameful most haven't seen through the thin veil.
Very best of luck.
C; "I've just read your linked article twice, and realised it really is the major break...."
Congratulations Charlie, you're only the 2nd too see it!! I'm sure some 'scorers' don't even read things, or they're not as bright...!
C; "Minkowski said something like 'from now we don't have space but limitless numbers of spaces'. I've double checked; Cologne 1909; "..endlessly many spaces". You know your history! Thanks, I've now included a ref. in your honour!
You're right about the shift mechanism. It is of course related to the simple single oscillator frequency modulation we use for EM waves with FM radio. 'wave bundle' spin particles are just the job. You're right, I was trying to condense the published version but I've now included it. It's no use leaving obvious gaps just to keep it concise.
I was wondering if I'd 'screened' the real content too well, but this has been more of a test of how perceptive and receptive the site and it's populus are, the real experiment to genuinely tell us 'what's ultimately possible' for the human race. You may or may not be pleased to hear you're one of only two exceptions proving my postulate! (so far). Though perhaps you're the only 2 who've actually read it!?
Many thanks. Do post any more queries or thoughts.
Peter
My field is telecommunications. Your essay caught my eye as a valid commentary on problems in science, as an interesting neurological problem analysis approach, and most interestingly introducing the rich fruits of that approach. From the previous post I now also see your fundamental experiment, and unfortunately I'm sure you're prediction is correct. I was surprised by the low marks, until I found out authors are 'community', and that also seems to prove your point!
It was your comments on frequency modulation, and related problems with communication through shocks, that really prompted this post. Your model anticipates possible problems with the Voyager 2 link through the shock, although not specifically. Have you heard anything about this or was it simply derived as it appears?
Brilliant thinking. Streets ahead, but probably too far! Best of luck
Nick S; "..most interestingly introducing the rich fruits of that approach"
Thank you Nick, fruits apparently still not noticed or tasted by most! You seem to suggest authors may be marking down the 'competition'. I'm sure nothing perceived as of genuine worth would be. I'm a little more concerned how few (from the 'community') have your perception!
Nick S; "..anticipates possible problems with the Voyager 2 link through the shock".
Hmmm, yes I suppose it would do, there should be significant frequency shift and interference! I haven't read anything about this. NASA seem to be playing quite close the their chest on this at present. Do you know anything? It should have gone for previous missions too, though less so. Yes it is simply derived from the model, which you've done better than me!
Nick S; "Brilliant thinking. Streets ahead, but probably too far."
Thanks for your kind words, probably simply just too far for most to pick up without it being based on numbers, and if I'd have thought in that way I'd never have found the model! Catch 22 I suppose.
The judging is of course on the essay itself, at face value, not the model, only scantily outlined as a sub plot therein. The superficial postulate of the essay is designed as self proving. It has been so as it criticises present limiting factors, which relate to attitudes, so won't be liked! As you've noticed, if readers can't get beyond this it also proves the fundamental postulate. Whilst this may be the right site this is not really the place to introduce new physics. It's the new though processes that are the more important for humanity.
If you have any info on the shock communication issue I'm intruigued. Many Thanks.
Peter Jackson
Dear Peter,
Interesting essay. Cross-disciplinarity is important, gaining overview over the whole of physics. I appreciated the abundance of quotes. You give meaningful thoughts about how we may achieve the ultimately possible in physics, rather than what's the ultimately possible. The essay title remained cryptic for me with respect to the essay content. You mention perfect symmetry once as a minor point and there are some references to aether drag. Did I miss the deeper meaning? The forum discussion and the comment you left at my blog gave me a bit more information. I'll have to catch it another time.
May I quote your essay on my blog or twitter page?
Regards.
Arjen
Hi Arjen.
I see your essay is doing deservedly well. Yes, it seems you missed both the symmetry and the deeper meaning.
I won't go through the top 3 layers in detail, but essentially the postulate is now self proven. It proves Stokes right when he said; 'how can we know how we might have thought had we learned differently? Thinking about how we think, and how else we might be able to think, can be difficult.
But the real test is in the model itself, how many could recognise that it's real (just 3), and what perfect symmetry it gives. I believe you could be just the 4th to see it, so;
Using the postulates of STR as written but not the assumptions, and testing varied assumptions using modern science, a model arises which rather simply melds it with your own field. Consider the frenetic cloud of oscillating 'photoelectrons' that grows in size and activity around mass proportionally to velocity. If light cannot pass through it at anything other than 'c' (as the 2nd postulate says), and remembering that Doppler shift is equally proportional to relative speed, what would be the consequences? You may think from single Protons to Galaxies and larger.
Let me know how you get on, or ask any questions. And if you think the essay may be worth more than a derisory 2.3 by all means give it a score!
Best of luck.
Peter Jackson