John,

"I think I have some appreciation for your interest in Fourier Transforms..."

"But back to the lonely photon, my interest is in idealizing a stream emission as a simple theoretic geometric model which interprets the sinusoidal wave as the signature of a rise and fall of EM field strengths. So I try to ask questions to find out how conventions treat the subject."

Now think of how QM describes that lonely photon's rise and fall in amplitude... As a Fourier Superposition of INFINITELY long, in both directions, sinusoids, that just happen to add up to the "pulse shape" of a single photon. But what casual agent knew, infinitely long ago, that it had to start emitting those sinusoids, all with just the right phases and amplitudes, eons before the big bang, so that they would all add up, at just the right moment, to form that photon?

The math works, but in terms of providing any insight into causal agency, the Fourier Transforms (and thus superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the ultimate source of all the confusion. Continuing with my river analogy, the confusion flows out of the choice to use non-causal Fourier Transforms to describe casual phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

"(...superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the source of all the confusion."

The maths drown me so I'll have to go with the flow. But yes, indeed. I would take it back a bit further to the original Bohr 'quantum leap' being a case of classic Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It assumes that because the Planck Quantum is evidenced in any wave event that the quantum leap is the cause. Looking at it from an electrical engineering perspective, a resistance circuit will draw only as much current as the resistor can pass. The quantum leap simply supplies it. Which brings me to my question as to whether it is conventionally permitted to continuously divide the quantum as a constituent of a coupled charge, the proportions of which are dependent on wavelength. The implication being that the "pulse shape" is determined by an amplitude predicated on a charge quantity; that accelerates the charge quantity predicated on the finite time interval of the wavelength. Fourier Transforms applied to that rationale would be causal at origin, and arguably necessary, there is no reason to assume that the stream of emission would be consistently regular producing a uniform series of wavelength. While an excited atom would shed energy continuously it would firstly be a quantity relating to the time interval establishing a wavelength. We could call it a Planckton. This of course doesn't explain why spacetime chooses the Planck Quantum in the first place, but neither did Bohr. jrc

"Which goes to the point that you can't just pull 'action' out of the hat and then say that 'time' is the result. jrc "

That's right, John R. To stick my neck out a little, I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing.

Tom,

"I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing."

I agree, and conversely that because there is nothing we can look to establishing a universal metric for scale, least action requires at least operational scale invariance, where the action is least. In pondering this post, it occurred to me that could be at the Schwarzschild radius horizon. Singularity being a mathematic property, which you have often tried to explain as being inherited by GR from the equivalence principle in SR, is not the 'fault' of SR. You could have that stemming from any sort of equivalence, it's a property of the limit conditions. The singularity beyond the horizon then might be resolved as existential true scale invariance. I've been trying to tease out a simple geometric progression from any covariance to invariance for some while, but something's got ahold of my toe. 'e, phi, c' hhmmm... jrc

Robert,

I agree you view, but it has a horizon. Beyond that anthropocentric reality is a greater truth.

Consider your sinusoidal wave travelling the empty highway at c. It traverses d/t wrt the rest frame of the highway. No problem, but of course it can't then be 'measured'! The moment we add a bunch of electrons to create a detector, then the wavelength (so frequency) they find will be that ON detection, not those 'prior to' detection. That is the point which human intellect has so far failed to see. Detected frequency IS then observer dependent, and is then always c/n in the rest frame of the detector.

Once you've got your head around that, we then need to 'back off' and take an overview from out in space. What if there are TWO similar planets, both with empty roads, but rotating in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS! If we could 'see' the moving ('propagating') waves we would then see two DIFFERENT cases of c. Ergo c and the c' which many (Tom for instance) denies!

What reclaims logic and the SR postulates is then applying the first lesson to the second case. Al light interacting with our lenses or antenna WHEREVER we are has been instantaneously modulated to the new LOCAL 'c' in preparation for measurement.

Very few have taken the 'slow down and think' path far enough to be able to rationalise the initially complex and unfamiliar dynamics. I believe you've glimpsed them already in parts and have great hopes that you'll manage to put them together.

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard,

'OMG' is Oh my God! I agree with many of your points, but I try to simplify and be precise. The only confusion is due to the different and unfamiliar 'assumptions' I must specify.

Within the Michelson etc. findings is still 'allowed' the entrained inertial systems ('ionospheres') which Lodge wrongly ruled out with his 'inertial frame error'. There is then indeed no "preferred" frame because ALL frames are (equally) 'preferred'! All 'speed' has a LOCAL background as it's datum, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, etc etc ad infinitum; from single particles through all mass 'systems' (inc. lenses) right up to universes.

If you read my post above to Rob very carefully you may rationalise the implications.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

"I am not yet familiar with extinction but will familiarize myself with it. But what does it change in the battle between Galilean and Lorentz transformation? I doubt little"

I've shown the mechanism giving the asymptotic Lorentz limit to the Galilean transformation. There's no need for 'battle', and extinction is at it's heart. I suggest science is about finding unity not fighting wars!!

Consider a block of glass (a 'discrete field' = DFM) moving fast in space, or perhaps a Shuttle windscreen on 're-entry' into increasing electron density. Radio and light waves pass through just fine as the old wavelength is 'extinguished' and becomes the new Doppler shifted one (with each electron interaction).

But as plasma density at the nose increases (wavelength reduces towards gamma) the waves struggle increasingly to penetrate. This change is on a 'Power Curve', increasing 'non-linearly' as 'optical breakdown mode' approaches (Google it) not penetrating at all at Gamma. That non-linear curve is simply described mathematically by the 'Lorentz Factor'.

The extinction is obviously of the old speed, frequency and vector (wavefunction 'collapse') so also implements refraction. In more diffuse media the extinction may be over many light years, giving the gentle 'space-time' curve found, along with 'birefringence' during the process (both old and new 'axis' are detectable). (i.e. Google 'atmospheric birefringence'. or;

PRL; Cosmic Rotation.

Now quite a few jigsaw puzzle pieces came together there, and once you rationalise them you should see where many more also fit. But one step at a time! Extinction is just the old signal becoming the new local one, at local c in the new discrete field.

Best wishes

Peter

" ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light.

"Are you facetious?"

No. Einstein was only 16 when he realized this fact, with his reflected image thought experiment.

Stop opening new threads. Nothing you say is that important.

Thanks Peter,

I thought 'extinction' would be some exotic phenomenon but if all it is is that the old speed and frequency change on encountering a new matter medium (or one of differing density) to a new speed and frequency that is all in keeping with Galilean relativity. In the new medium (like under the deck in Galileo's ship) the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is what some may call Lorentz transformation but is actually provided for in Galilean relativity. I don't at the moment have sympathy for 'wavefunction collapse'. Above deck c' = c+v, below deck c' = c, since relative velocity, v of observer to light = 0, even though the ship is moving. If I get you correctly, 'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?

Akinbo

Me: " ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."

Thomas Howard Ray: "Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light."

Your reply is totally irrelevant to my statement, Thomas Howard Ray. If you are not facetious... I don't know what to say.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo;

"'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?" Yes. Thickness of boundary may be from nm to megaparsec scale.

Our atmosphere is a boundary zone (thus M&M's non zero result). The Top guy in atmospheric refraction is A T Young; USN Model Basis. and also; Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637(2004).

The 'Lorentz transformation' is properly just the NON-LINEARITY of the Galilean transformation when approaching the limit c at min wavelength Gamma. It is a good approximation. It's also found as the power curve in the LHC approaching c.

You must consider a glass deck-hatch in Galileo's ship to physically allow the light in and implement the (JM) rotation of optical axis and speed change we call 'refraction' (including the independent 'kinetic' element of it).

Wavefunction collapse is poorly understood, but it is none the less one 'quantum' description of refraction. If you discard just one member from the ontological construction, then like the Eiffel tower it will be coherence that collapses, returning it all to the tangled mess we have now! Nature's not a 'pick-n-mix' sweet shop.

Is it al coming together yet?

Peter

Tom,

Pentcho has inadvertently bolstered your argument that scale invariance of least action is a proof of the continuous nature of time. If you'll notice, for his schema to work, time and space would have to vary in operational scale in any given velocity event that he propounds as a c+v, or c-v equation. To ascribe a covariance in any event would require arbitrarily assigning a metric of interval to each.

It brings a tear to my glass eye. jrc

Tom,

I'll bet she did. She clearly saw to impressing you with argumentative integrity, and probably engaged you in activities exercising counting and sorting tasks. Did you know (?) that, many people whom experience dyslexia 'finger count' when they work any math. It took a while to see in your diverse posts, but there is a very holographic quality in your thinking and in general any discrete process you discuss has the whole picture of hierarchy in the axiomatic structure of any of your arguments.

Happy New Year, by the way, jrc

Once more the analysis of the Albert Einstein Institute showing that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the light source is c=3d/t and relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = c + v = 4d/t

where t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", d is the distance between subsequent pulses and v=c/3 is the speed of the receiver relative to the light source. Clearly special relativity is violated.

The relativistic corrections cannot save special relativity - for v=c/3 gamma is 1.05 which makes c' even slightly greater than c+v.

Pentcho Valev

    That's perceptive of you, John R. Yes, I did once count on my fingers -- an odder thing I remember after my auto accident, though, was that I was quite old, maybe 11 or 12, before I understood that "minus" means the same thing as "take away." I know this sounds silly -- it's true, though, if one were to ask me, e.g., "what is 7 minus 2?" I would have no idea what they were talking about. I knew that "7 take away 2" is 5, and I could solve the written problem 7 - 2 = ?.

    It makes me uncomfortable to talk about personal things in a public forum. However, I think this somewhat relates to the topic. Right brain functions (the area of my head injury at age 3 or 4) are said to be the domain of creative thinking and left brain functions the domain of analytical thinking.

    The complete functioning is reciprocal -- just like the reciprocal physcial relations in the mathematically complete theory of special relativity.

    Best,

    Tom

    "Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u. Observed period T' = (lambda)/(v+u). Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) (negative sign means observer moving AWAY)"

    Clearly the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:

    f' = f(1±u/v)

    is based on the assumption:

    "Speed observed = v+u" (v is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary source)

    This assumption is FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY and yet it is the only reasonable one. If Einsteinians believe it is false, they should state that explicitly, e.g. in the following way:

    False: Speed observed = v+u

    True: Speed observed = v

    Then honest Einsteinians should advance some other assumption, justify it as best they can, and deduce the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) from it. Until this is done, the assumption:

    "Speed observed = v+u"

    remains the only reasonable one, confirmed experimentally countless times (insofar as the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) has been confirmed experimentally countless times).

    Pentcho Valev