Peter,

Thanks for that reference. Some interesting info in that article.

First, it is beyond me why anyone would call an electric field of 10^18 V/m a "vacuum".

Second, they say that "by quantum "magic" the deeply perturbed vacuum is restored after the pulse has passed." Sounds strange to me. They they state that "Two superposed pulses do not so much interact with each other, but interact together with the fluctuations in the vacuum." Of course, if I were explaining it, I would have the C-fields interacting.

Similarly, "the new and unexpected scattering of light on light", would not have been unexpected from the perspective of the C-field induced by the photon momentum.

So thanks for the info.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #118

Dear Edwin,

Does the Big Bang event violate the empirical law: Conservation of Energy? If not, then where did that energy come from?

    Jason,

    Assume you have 2 masses gravitationally attracting each other. if you add a third mass, the system will be more tightly bound. In physics bound systems are considered to have negative energy, in that positive energy is required to un-bind the system. For example, if we wish to move the third mass out to 'infinity' we have to expend a lot of positive energy, just as a spacecraft has to expend energy to 'escape' the gravitation that binds it to the earth.

    So gravitational energy has been considered (since Maxwell, I believe) to be negative.

    This is not so different from an electron in orbit about a proton. It takes about 13.6 eV of positive energy to overcome the binding energy, hence the binding energy is 'negative'.

    In my essay I assume that nothing but the gravitational field exists initially. The energy of the field implies equivalent mass thru E=mc^2.

    But this field is 'exploding' (I hate that word) away from the Big Bang, so the equivalent mass is moving away and hence has positive kinetic energy, or energy of motion. In this sense some speculate that the initial negative potential energy of gravity plus the positive kinetic energy associated with the field's outward expansion sum up to zero. I believe that this is called the "Free Lunch Universe" or similar, since the Big Bang in this case occurs with net zero energy, thus conserving energy.

    Make sense?

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #120

    Hi Edwin,

    I totally agree with the "Free Lunch Universe" also known as the "Zero energy Universe". Furthermore, I am "one-upping" the argument by saying that the shift photon is symmetric to a gravity or time dilation field. While multiple lasers would be necessary to create a shift photon, I am suggesting that shift photons themselves would be the key to creating more "zero-energy" in the form of shift photon propulsion.

    At this fork in the road, either the physics community will shrug and call me a creative "wack-job", or will build the experiment and attempt to throw off the shackles of conservation of energy. Neither String theory nor M-theory have a testable alternative.

    I would like to provide a scientific framework upon which the UFO phenomena can be understood. If we had even a theoretical understanding of how space-ships can hover and move without using rocket fuel, jet engines or aerospace technology, then we could hope to build our own.

    Conservation of energy has to be challenged, probed, and assailed, or we will live out our civilization's life span without ever reaching a distant star or truly exploring the universe.

    Jason,

    Face it, the odds are good that the physics community will shrug and call us all creative "wack-jobs". I hope that Joy Christian, at least, escapes this destiny, but it would be out of character for the community to do anything else.

    I addressed some of this in your thread with my Jan. 28, 2011 @ 02:50 GMT comment. I said:

    "I like your shift photon as frequency analog of Newton's force equation. But although gravity produces a force, force does not necessarily produce gravity, unless gravity and acceleration are defined to be identical. But then what does one call it when an electric field accelerates a charged particle--gravity? In an equation, the equal sign often has sort of a 'one-way' meaning. I suspect it's the same for photon shift."

    In other words, gravity shifts the photon. The photon shift may not make gravity. Just as time doesn't really flow both ways, no matter how much some theories suggest it does (or should). The universe seems to have 'directions'.

    But I also said that I've recently focused more effort on understanding the coupling of the electromagnetic and the gravito-magnetic fields and have run across a few surprises, and that I plan to spend more effort on this.

    At times in my life, I have felt just as you do about interstellar travel. At the moment I'm just having fun exploring this local universe.

    I don't want to discourage you, neither do I want to falsely lead you on, so I just make the most informative and appropriate responses I can.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #122

    Edwin,

    In the case of time running in both directions, it creates grandfather paradoxes which automatically disqualifies the idea of time travel. In the case of shift photons, I just think it's a cool idea that gravity and relativistic motion frequency shift photons. Shift photons seem to be natural carriers of equivalent gravitational potential energy. The mathematics is already there and doesn't seem to resist being used backwards.

    I was looking at gravitational waves. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravitational waves. But think of this. If space-time can have gravity waves, then doesn't it follow that space-time can have a resonant frequency? I've got a shift photon that can act like a gravity wave, but it takes a lot of energy to get any kind of lift from it. Yet, if shift photons could match the resonance of space-time, then a new form of propulsion would be inevitable.

    I think shift photons are a cool idea. Redshift and time dilation already describe the effect of gravity upon light. We can use light to transmit information in amazing ways. It just seems on natural that frequency shifted light can carry a gravity wave. All we have to do is find the natural resonance frequency of space-time and ...

    Maybe the shift photon idea is a few centuries too early.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #123

      Dear Dr. Klingman,

      As I keep telling Jaons, you are a true gentleman and scholar. FQXi should consider you for membership, as I sincerely believe you would be an invaluable asset! To show my appreciation for your careful consideration of my essay, I have awareded you 10 points.

      Thanks again,

      Robert

        • [deleted]

        • Post #124

        Sorry Jason, my damn fingers seem to want to type whatever they please, or I should consider glasses!

        Robert

        • [deleted]

        • Post #125

        I agree. Dr. Klingman is a true gentlemen, an assett and should be considered for membership in FQXI.

        Jason,

        Another excellent idea, that space-time could have a resonant frequency if it supports gravity waves. Unfortunately, I am tending toward the belief that gravity waves do not exist.

        But if they do, your idea of driving the resonance with shift photons is innovative.

        I too think that shift photons are a cool idea. Whether it is an idea that physically works as you want it to is less certain. Some of my best ideas were cool, but the numbers do not always work out. But if the numbers do work, and you can figure out how to demonstrate its operation, then you definitely won't have to wait centuries.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Robert, Jason - thank you for your expressions of good will.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #128

        Indeed he is very scholar and gentlemen.But we can say a critic I think,we aren't here to take gloves when we speak to people.A gentlemen or a scholar is not always right.

        I have given 8, because I know him and his essay merit a good rate, simply.We aren't here to be not transparent or false in the rates, the logic is essential, the rest is vain.In general I read the essay, I give ...5 points for the methods and ...5ppoints for the ideas.

        Here 3 and 5.Ray also I given 8,5 et 3...and this and that.When I am not ok with an idea, for example or if I have some irriting discussions with a person, it's not a reason to give a bad rate due to that.That has a name, that, the sincere logic for a correct judgement.

        On that regards

        Steve

        • [deleted]

        • Post #129

        Edwin,

        As promised, I read your paper -- or at least, I started it, but I can't get past the first two papges without questions hitting me in the face, so if we may deal with those, and see what happens from there:

        1. How does your master equation (1) differ from the Laplace equation? If the object is to find a function on some domain ("primordial field") where according to Laplace (operator)^2 = 0 -- and I don't see how the object could be otherwise, because you want the laws of physics to be derived from a zero point vacuum ("interacts with itself") -- then quantum fluctuations already explain that cosmology; i.e., a zero average quantum field vacuum energy fluctuates locally away from zero. But this preempts your claim to derive all physics from a local model.

        2. Scale invariance only implies motion invariance at T = 1. Locally, mapping arbitrary t ---> T, we get time dependence as you note, but then one cannot map that local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion-invariant space without a nonlocal model (which is exactly what Bell's theorem says).

        Unless you mean something nonstandard by "locality" that I don't understand, I can't go further into your thesis. Hope you can help me.

        Tom

          Tom,

          Although I'm not sure that page by page is the best way to go, at least on first reading, I'll try to get you past the first page.

          You ask if: del (dot) g = g (dot ) g is the same as del (dot) del = 0.

          Once one applies Maxwell's and Einstein's teachings on field energy and mass equivalence then we find Newton's equation falls out of the original equation, but that is based on the application of physical teachings to the starting assumption.

          Did you expect that some elementary starting point based on the assumption of one field and only one field would somehow not look like Laplace equation? You say that you don't see how it could be otherwise.

          You then say it is equivalent to "a zero point vacuum ("interacts with itself") -- then quantum fluctuations already explain that cosmology; i.e., a zero average quantum field vacuum energy fluctuates locally away from zero. But this preempts your claim to derive all physics from a local model."

          This brings in all of your quantum preconceptions, which you have already stated don't make sense without non-locality. This will of course prevent your seeing that there is a way to make sense of local realism. I don't know how to purge your mind of things that you think you know, but I suspect this is going to prevent you from making sense of my model. Since it appears that both Florin and Christian have agreed with Einstein and others that QM is incomplete, I wish that you would try to open your mind to a new understanding, rather than start on page one and say that quantum mechanics contradicts my model.

          You style seems heavily based on mathematics with little or no input from physical intuition. That's understandable, in that QM for a century has been mystical and non-intuitive. But that's not my approach, and if it turns out, as I think it will, that Bell's inequality was incorrect, then all of the non-sense of non-local, non-real physics should be forgotten. So if you wish to try to understand my model, please attempt to forget these non-sensical ideas. And if you cannot manage to do that, then you may as well save your time and not bother with the rest of my essay. You should go back and fight with Joy Christian if that is your approach, because I don't intend to fight the battle of non-locality here.

          However, if you'd like to try to understand an alternative, then I'll be happy to work with you.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Tom,

          If you're still with me.

          You say that "Scale invariance only implies motion invariance at T = 1. Locally, mapping arbitrary t ---> T, we get time dependence as you note, but then one cannot map that local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion-invariant space without a non-local model (which is exactly what Bell's theorem says)."

          I agree that one cannot map local time dependent dynamic space onto the motion invariant space, and that is why I say 'formal time dependence'. As long as the original field has perfect symmetry then it is time and motion invariant. But if symmetry breaks, then "action orthogonal to a radial field vector can produce a vortex or cyclical phenomenon in a region of space, introducing duration or cycle time. So time appears when the G-field symmetry breaks and local oscillations, i.e. natural clocks, occur."

          The time dependent phase occurs as symmetry breaking; real time dependence appears with the C-field. And the local vortices are Yang-Mills in nature.

          Tom, try to picture the expansion of the perfectly spherical gravity field as equivalent mass 'moving' outward [or being 'scaled up']. Each 'ray' of this energy/mass would ordinarily induce a C-field circulation around it, but it is surrounded by other rays, each of which is inducing their own C-field circulation, and the net result is that all C-field circulation cancels and the C-field is 'suppressed'. When symmetry breaks, this changes. First, the Lorentz-like force equation shows an inflationary aspect will appear immediately, and second, the 'first' vortex to appear after symmetry breaking may actually induce a 'preferred direction' also known as the 'axis of evil'.

          We now have an inflating universe and a means of producing particles, beginning with neutrinos.

          I hope you focus on the physics involved here.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #132

          Edwin,

          I think we have too many differences to overcome. In answering my objections, you just raised more; e.g., saying that the symmetry breaking of your unified field is equivalent to local realism. That conception is Newtonian, not relativistic. You must have absolute time and space to make it work. Compare to Einstein's concept of the unified field: "Relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field." It has to be so, because though gravity is symmetrical (time reverse symmetry), the limitation imposed by invariant light speed by which all physics is local denies universal invariance of time. You've either got invariant time, or you've got a nonlocal model. Which is why Einstein's theory failed. Nonlocality comes with quantum mechanics. You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it.

          Tom

          • [deleted]

          • Post #133

          Edwin, congratulations on an excellent essay. I have also enjoyed your comments in the FQXi forum.

          A couple sentences from your conclusion jumped out at me: "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings," and, "Informed reality depends upon the existence of thresholds." This same idea struck me as I was writing my essay. I argued that it is specifically biological (and technological) processes -- which are typically threshold-based -- which give rise to the discrete reality of facts and observations, and these exclusively form the basis of everything we know about the world. In other words it is the process of techno-biological measurement that "carves up the continuum"; I refer to that carved-up continuum as the "broken universe." I discuss requirements and often-ignored peculiarities of decoherence to support this view. I realize this is kind of an audacious metaphysical position to be taking, and my impression is many readers aren't sure what to make of it.

          Anyway, I hope you can check it out sometime, and best of luck in the competition.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #134

            Tom,

            I'm afraid that I agree that we have too many differences to overcome. I was hoping that you would understand that my model makes physical sense, and if you found one or two mathematical points to choke on, that you might even help me to make them satisfactory from your viewpoint.

            But I didn't expect it.

            There is no question that, if you can't even consider local realism as possible, you can't understand my model. And you're wrong. I don't have to live with non-locality. It is a schizophrenic conception of reality.

            On another thread you said: "When Einstein called a theory "incomplete" he meant _mathematically_ incomplete. The special and general theory of relativity are mathematically complete theories because they start with first principles (invariance of light speed, Minkowski spacetime) and proceed to closed form judgments on physical results. Einstein had a love for mathematical beauty, elegance, symmetry. The mathematics of quantum mechanics in contrast is "ugly" as Einstein said -- indeed, even today it's a dog's breakfast. The reason is mostly historical. QM does not start with first principles; theorists were forced to explain the results of 2-slit experiment (Young)rather than predicting them in a mathematically complete theory from first principles. So it's still incomplete in that respect. However, the standard model of particle physics is highly successful and complete in reconciling physical results with the mathematics."

            I have nothing against "mathematically complete" theories, but unless they work for the observable universe, without strings, many worlds, multiverses, extra dimensions, or other 'other worldly' crutches, then I have no use for them. What actually exists is the analog of the five blind men grabbing on to different parts of an elephant. Each is correct in his description, possibly elegantly so, and even 'complete', but each is pathetically missing the whole reality.

            I certainly agree with your characterization of QM, but I don't agree that the Standard Model is highly successful. If it were then SUSY would not be required, 11-dimensional manifolds would not be taken seriously, the Higgs would show up, and QCD would achieve better than 4 or 5 percent accuracy. As best I can determine, QCD today consists in running Monte Carlo programs like PYTHIA, to filter LHC collision data, and updating "branching ratios as necessary". I have other complaints about the standard model, but I doubt they would impress you.

            So thanks for reading the first page of my essay. I certainly did not enter this contest thinking that I would convince the true believers.

            Good luck with your essay.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Karl,

            Thanks for your comment. Yours was one of the first essays I read and I intended to comment, then got caught up in all the other essays and comment threads. I will re-read your essay and post a comment.

            The 'original' threshold, and in my mind the essential threshold, is the quantum of action, h. Analog or continuous fields can exist and I believe do exist, but until they cross the threshold of minimum action, nothing happens. Past that point everything that you characterize as biological and technological becomes possible, probably inevitable.

            Probably the reason that I did not immediately comment is your focus on 'coherence' and 'decoherence'. While I think that I agree with you, this aspect is fuzzy enough in my mind to preclude making easy statements about it.

            However, I have recently come to believe that some C-field phenomena are best understood in these terms, so I am trying to un-fuzz my thinking.

            Thanks again,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            • [deleted]

            • Post #136

            I'm not your adversary, Edwin.

            It might surprise you that I support classical determinism. I'm just not willing to throw quantum mechanics out the window to get it. If that makes me a true believer, at least I have the data to justify it.

            Of course it's true that I (like Einstein) prefer a mathematically complete model, one that makes closed judgments on phenomena from a couple of simple principles. You want the same, do you not? All physics reduced to a locally realistic model from a single field (C field), by broken symmetry. That's what the Higgs field in the extended standard model wants to do, too -- with a distinct difference. Time conservation. I follow your argument that time dilation would conserve time in your model -- except that your t = 0 and there's nothing to conserve, which makes the model non-dynamic, and non-kinetic. As I have tried with no success to explain to Jason, time dilation in general relativity is an observer effect, not an independent physical quality. It seems to me if you want to take that direction, you have to model your mathematics in the complex Hilbert space, where you can have imaginary time entangled with space, but of course that probably contradicts your program of local realism.

            I'm only emphasizing what I disagree with, because I think those points are show-stoppers to a locally realistic theory. I could be wrong, yet remain unconvinced. I do, however, heartily agree with your conclusion that "physical reality depends on continuous fields (and) informed reality depends on the existence of thresholds, or universal constants." If reality is only information, though, one can get classical determinism from a quantum mechanical model (see 't Hooft).

            Best,

            Tom