Essay Abstract

We explore the theory that space itself is divided into discrete domains by refractive boundary zones, forming 'discrete fields,' each centred on matter in relative motion. A related inconsistency in the application of refracted vectors is identified. A wholly new conceptual approach is allowed using physical and mutually exclusive inertial frames, reconnecting 'Locality' with realism. A picture of a new logical and undivided science, field, and reality emerges from the mists, giving 2020 vision and throwing new light on Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Entanglement & Quantum Relativity, and even offering a glimpse of an intuitive QM-GR gravity. The roles of maths, length contraction, dilation and Lorentz are transformed, simply defined and re-superposed without paradox from Planck scale upwards. Einstein's thought experiments are reviewed, and some major anomalies are tested as falsification, and found to rapidly evaporate. We define inertial frames and discover how extra special Relativity might really be with a simple and intuitive quantum mechanism to clarify and drive it.

Author Bio

Born 1951, UK. Pure Maths dropped due to conscientious objection, for; Environmental Sciences, Physics and Architecture including, Energy, Engineering & Philosophy (Cant, PCL/UoW). Head of private consultancy, in research, conceptual analysis and design, specialisations; renewable energy and conservation. Interests; Einstein, Cosmology, Fluid Dynamics, Optics, Sport; (representative).

Download Essay PDF File

Peter,

A fascinating essay. I think I follow it all the way through, but, at the end, it doesn't yet fit seamlessly in my head. (Obviously you've had more time to work on the 'seams'.)

Whereas I can usually find, without much effort, statements in other essays that I disagree with, none of your statements jump out in this fashion.

Of course, since you seem to defend local realism, I expect others to come down on you with both feet, but, having just finished Anon Zeilinger's 'Dance of the Photons', I believe that there is a hole a mile wide in the Bell arguments. I touch on this in my essay.

I find your notion of 'incentric' as an explanation for 7c jets also fascinating. I am interested in these jets because the C-field dipole of massive rotating black holes explains these light-years-long jets in a simple way whereas magnetic field explanations do not really appear feasible.

You are also one of the few to reference the very important 'flyby' anomalies. I do so in my essay, and, had I waited a week longer to submit my essay I would have included info from the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231101 by David M. Lucchesi and Roberto Peron: "Accurate Measurement in the Field of the Earth of the General-Relativistic Precession of the LAGEOS II Pericenter and New Constraints on Non-Newtonian Gravity". You might wish to review this article.

I plan to spend more time studying your essay, and hope you find time to study mine. In particular, I have derived what might be categorized as a 'quantum gravity description of time dilation' (eqn 7 in my essay) that I have applied to some of Einstein's rotating framework examples, and it seems to make sense there. I have begun to look at the effect of this equation on light, but have not finished my analysis. I will probably add a later comment here with more info and requesting your opinion.

In short, yours is a well focused, well explained essay that is very challenging. It does not rest on speculative phenomena at Planck energies that we will probably never reach, but is focused on the simplest picture that addresses real physics from recent experiments. I congratulate you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin

    Many thanks. Yes, to me there are no seams, but the whole thing would take 9 books not pages!

    The conceptual 'gluon' here is quantum CSL. A refractive plasma boundary to all mass, so all measurement of em waves gives c. Once you've really understood "all mass", and "proportional to speed," and the standard atomic scattering process, and think through it's implications, nature and the universe become simply beautiful and comprehensible.

    The growing problem I'm have now is remembering all the complex stuff that used to go round in my mind. If you've seen the UK's Channel 4 adverts you'll know how it looks, a complex jumble of unconnected parts as the camera moves, until it gets to one spot, and it all comes together in a single large figure '4'. But just look in slightly the wrong direction and it can't be seen.

    I didn't even want to think about gravity, but, from where I now am, a quick glance, and there it was; Consider curved Space-Time; It is real. In a plasma cloud light doesn't refract and change direction suddenly, like into glass, it takes a great curve, the more dense the medium the greater the curve. It's done by scattering, (PMD explaining 'n'), Huygens, and Ewald-Oseen like extinction defining refracted light path a la the path integral. You were almost spot on with Haish & Rueda's GEM. Increased inertial mass is actually physically held in the photoelectron cloud, which increases density with speed - (through and wrt 'nothing' we thought!). The other term for it is 'Dark Matter'. As you said, "mass density is ill defined in GM", but it's crucial!

    It's so naive and unbelievable simple it'll be simply unbelievable to most over 8 years old. Much indoctrination has to be overcome. Take a look at this quick video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm (let me know if the link doesn't work).

    I've also done papers on CD - Huygens Construction (he who 1st did F = mv^2), 'under consideration', and on exactly where it all went wrong, http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf which will help, also some earlier ones.

    I really hope it comes together for you. Please point out any weak points as it's getting more difficult for me to see them.

    best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    I've not spent that much time and effort finding problems with special relativity, but I seem to have more friends who find problems with SR than with anything else, and often, 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

    It looks like it will take a while to study your Jackson/Nixey pdf and I will get back after I've read it.

    Because gravito-magnetism was initially believed to be too weak to be of any consequence, it has been essentially ignored for 150 years. In fact, the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above is possibly the first time that gravito-magnetism has 'officially' and unequivocally attributed the discrepancy with general relativity's predictions to the gravito-magnetic field (aka the 'C-field').

    So my basic premise is that gravity G, gravito-magnetic C, electric E and electromagnetic B-fields exist, and I believe G and C are 'classical' ie, each field is a continuum. I am less sure whether E and B are continua or whether they are statistical effects of bosons. I'm thinking about it. Maxwell first wrote the GEM equations simply based on symmetry (Newton's ~ Coulomb's equation) and these were later derived as the 'weak field limit' of general relativity.

    The key fact is that my calculations provide reason to believe that gravito-magnetism is 10**31 times stronger than was originally believed, and Martin Tajmar has experimentally found the same factor. If correct, this has very significant consequences for particle physics and cosmology.

    On the surface Maxwell's EM equations and the analogous GEM look very similar. But there is a drastic essential difference. The EM fields interact strongly with charge, but are themselves uncharged, hence their self-interaction is linear and supports 'superposition' in the mathematico-physical sense of interference. But the GEM fields interact with mass and, through self-energy E=mc**2, thereby interact with themselves in a non-linear, ie, Yang-Mills manner, providing for physical phenomena that have been attributed to other fields (which physicists freely invent due to the nature of the Lagrangian technique).

    If it turns out to be the case, as looks more likely every day, that the C-field is not only real, but has the strength I claim it has, and, as also looks more likely, neither the Higgs nor SUSY particles show up, then "somebody got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

    I claim the C-field explains dozens of anomalies that GR, QED, and QCD cannot explain.

    The results of this, if true, will be, as you say, that physics is much simpler than is currently believed to be the case. This, incredibly, will make a lot of people unhappy. Go figure.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Edwin and Peter,

    I agree that this is a fascinating essay, and I congratulate Peter on it. With respect to Edwin's reference to local realism, I just want to note that the local realism in Peter's paper concerns simply the local determination of c's value; as such, this local realism is logically distinct from the local realism with which Bell's arguments deal. Hence, quantum nonlocality is not, in general, ruled out (or rendered unnecessary) by Peter's ideas. By the same token, the existence of a cosmological preferred frame that facilitates such nonlocality is not ruled out either (though as Peter says in his paper, such a frame is not positively required by his theory). Indeed, as Peter notes in his comment on my own essay, his ideas enable us to see that the existence of a preferred frame is compatible with CSL; and I'm grateful to him for pointing that out.

    Willard Mittelman

    Peter,

    In the interest of trying to harmonize our theories, I offer the following observations. In your 2020 essay, under Lorentz Transformation, page 6, you say the following:

    "To keep the new local v below c, for momentum p=mv, the only place for the energy is in m (mass). This predicts a very strange phenomenon..."

    Peter, if you look at the diagrams on page 6 in my essay, you will find that any momentum, p=mv, gives rise to a circulating C-field, just as any charge current, qv, induces a circulating B-field. On page 3, my equation 9 shows that dp/dt = d(circulation)/dt, therefore 'stored energy' in the C-field generates a Lenz-law-like effect that explains conservation of linear momentum of free particles. Now consider the diagram for a massive particle. If we apply a force, F, the momentum p will change, F=dp/dt. In the diagram a larger momentum means a longer 'arrow' or vector, p, which, according to the above, would be accompanied by a greater C-field circulation (drawn as a bigger red circle around the mass.)

    If one tries to 'stop' the higher momentum particle, the larger stored energy in the C-field will, Lenz-law again, 'kick harder', giving the appearance of a larger mass. A special relativistic analysis of this would be interesting.

    It seems to provide an alternative to 'virtual' particles, that I do not favor.

    A similar momentum argument would apply to the photon, in addition to any attendant frequency changes involved.

    Any thoughts?

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin

    I agree we're describing precisely the same event & effect, but from different viewing positions. In a way this proves local (subjective) reality, which I briefly cover in the essay; Every signal in passage to every observer has to negotiate various 'barbers shops' to get there. They therefore MUST look different on arrival.

    Rare twins unaffected by varying gravity, frame transitions, encounters etc. may keep original concrete reality, and keep open 'mobile phone' lines, until one is changed.

    But I invite you to take a step closer to empirical reality with me. Forget 'virtual' particles (your brain gives different connotations to mine). My 'photoelectrons' first came from reality not theory. It's obvious to me you haven't done the homework on collider physics or followed the Ref's. These things are real. They bounce off the walls causing damage. They were seen when the first electron was accelerated in a vacuum and have been a massive (lol) problem at the Tevatron and LHC ever since. They propagate in a cloud around the proton bunches (etc) exponentially with speed. They also propagate standing similar clouds around the magnets. Great effort is put in to trying to minimise them as they increase energy bills unacceptably, absorbing vast amounts of accelerator energy. (densities up to 10^13/mm^-3)

    They also oscillate and give off radiation, f subject to speed. (similar to the radiation we find in the uneven CMB picture). Now consider Bragg - because these are bit like FM radio oscillators that modulates em waves so we can hear things like pennies drop with 20-20 hearing and 'vision', and at the right wave arrival (after modulation) rate, (think local 'c'), however many 'barbers' the signal has visited on the way, and whatever their relative approach speed.

    If you also look at actual space exploration results from shocks you'll find the same 'plasma' particles at densities & frequencies subject to mass and speed through the vacuum, refracting light in what becomes gentle curves subject to plasma density.

    Does that ding on a Bell somewhere?

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #8

    Interesting DMF CENTRISM.

    And interesting discussions with c field centrism of consciousnes hihihi .

    Congratulations dear scientists.

    well for physics INSERT mv1v2V...constant FOR ALL PHYSICAL SPHERES.

    You have fear to use this word or waht ahahah .In all case with my equation, you shall improve your conclusions.

    The rotations of entangled spheres explain all.

    But interesting essays.

    Regards

    Steve sphericentrist .

    ps peter is right, forget the virtuality.

    Peter,

    Thanks for your latest thoughts. I'm confident the judges will take your work seriously and show it the respect it deserves.

    Best wishes,

    Willard Mittelman

    Peter,

    Still reading your (& Nixey) paper, sporadically. Some thoughts:

    Einstein's 1952 view that 'space' is actually "infinitely many spaces in relative motion" is very hard to interpret, but certainly seems to imply that 'locality' is paramount.

    That "the nature of light is still subject to contention 100 years after Special Relativity" seems corroborated by the papers in this FQXi contest.

    I don't believe that 'empty space' exists, as I believe gravity to be a continuous field filling space everywhere. Frank Wilczek seems to say the same about 'quantum fields' everywhere in space, but I reject 'quantum fields'.

    If gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation, as explained in my essay, helps conserve the photon's inertial momentum.

    FWIW, your paper inspired me to re-buy Jenkins and White's "Fundamentals of Physical Optics", the only physics text I've ever sold in my life. Also, FYI, I took 'Introduction to Fourier Optics' under Joseph Goodman, the first time he taught the course out of his book.

    You state that "Max Planck's proposal of a compressible aether, more dense at the surface countered Lorentz's first objection...[but not] that the speed of light would be affected by density." It is along these lines that I think my equation 7 may have relevance, when the right hand side is viewed as variation of density.

    I have not yet worked out the case of photons traversing a region of space, (dV =dx**3), subject to

    d(t)/dV = d(m)/dx --- (in units of Planck action, h) .

    The 'time dilation' dt, here would seem to imply that a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.)

    The above is for an extended wave front traversing a variable density region at right angles to the variation in density.

    If the direction of the photons is parallel to the direction of maximum variation, then we have a Pound-Rebka type of dilation. This may be consistent with your statement on page 8 (Nixey) that "we now know that light speed is indeed reduced by increasing density in the atmosphere."

    That's as far as I've gotten on your Nixey paper, but I find it very well written, extremely interesting, and not too difficult to follow, although I have not checked any of the results.

    Thanks for putting me on to that paper. I am very interested in applying equation 7, which is derived in a straightforward manner from my generalized Heisenberg principle, which in turn fell right out of my Master equation, which is essentially a fundamental statement of logic.

    Ain't FQXI fun!

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Willard,

    I agree with you, although that is a distinction I had not made when I wrote the above comment to which you refer. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Peter,

    Thanks for your 'Big Issue' remarks to me: "The reason the 'ether' field was banished was to allow the SR solution to constancy of EM wave propagation speed (CSL) with respect to all receivers. Only when we find a quantum friendly version of this allowing CSL can we have a unified field back and let physics progress."

    Willard's comment on the existence of a preferred frame being compatible with CSL [and thanking you for pointing that out] has focused me on this issue. I would like to ask you and/or Willard to try to clearly and simply state where we are, and where we want to go. As brief and clear as possible.

    You seem to be 'bootstrapping' [pardon my French] your way through the universe, one frame at a time, in the spirit of Einstein's "infinity of spaces in relative motion", restarting with velocity 'c' at each step. [Feel free to correct this statement.] Willard seems to fell that at every 'hop', you are in a new preferred frame, and the problem, as I understand it is to relate this to quantum theory. Is this even close?

    I'll await your answer before proceeding.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin.

      Thanks for your kind comments on the Aberration paper. How on earth can we get them Peer reviewed, or proposed to arXiv!?

      'Bootstrapping' The whole basis is that bootstrapping ISN'T required, indeed au contraire (pardon mine too,) it's all about conservation of energy; E =f*lambda.

      Imagine a block of ice flying (past you right to left) through space. Enter stage left some light pulses, waves or photons 1ns apart. They slow down 1. due to the n of ice (Stokes scattering), plus 2. due to the v of the ice block! The 2nd is oft forgot. The energy ('spacing' or wavelength) is compressed (blue shifted). (if stage right, they red shift on entry 'stretching' the energy). You see f conserved, but lambda and c changed. If you grab hold of and move with the ice you see c constant and both f and lambda changed.

      Seperately, but as 'process', the energy of the ('C'?) field is compressed by the front of the block condensing the photoelectron cloud (fine structure) plasma. This means even if the ice were simply another 'body' of field medium in relative motion the light would be refracted by the plasma to stay at 'c' in the new 'inertial field.'

      Read Willards comments carefully. He says, perceptively, that he agrees this means there is NO problem with Bell.

      I think I agree with all in post 1. The above should help with 'clarification', but it seems once a key truth is found the flood gates of explanations open and we get swamped! Briefly;

      Lorentz and Special Relativity (SR) gave us a long sought solution explaining CSL wrt moving observers, but the 'ether' as a light bearing '3rd frame' had to be removed as a by-product (though all other qualities were brought back for GR). We've had paradoxes, conflicts with QM and endless problems and anomalies, but no-ones yet found anything better to replace SR with. This is where we've been for over 100 years. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, 'belief' based, the powers that be can't now countenance any use of the 'scientific method' to question SR or the kings new clothes. So is this how humanity ends?

      Luckily the actual answer proves the both Postulates and Principles of SR correct WITH a Quantum Mechanism, so the removal of the field is no longer necessary. There can be a complete combined (if complex) field again with various effects including gravity. I'd personally use the term 'C' for 'Condensate' as well as allowing 'c' wrt itself. The choice of letter is good. The arguments about detail? probably won't even start! but if they did would be eternal. It's difficult for brains to hold so many variables at first, but once it's familiar its self apparent.

      This opens the flood gates to solving a host of anomalies. At the risk of frightening some, It suggests Lagrangian points exist at centres of gravitational equilibrium including black holes, gravity wells don't exist, (light goes at 'c' through galaxies in motion, perturbing light cone surfaces), dark matter is just the condensed plasma causing the flyby and Voyager anomalies, etc etc.

      I'm an ex Rugby forward. I've done my bit, made a breakthrough and am now desperately looking round for some talented backs to pass the ball to and do the job I'm not equipped for.

      I hope that hasn't confused you. You could help me with Fourier optics. I know it sits neatly somewhere between Huygens Construction and Ewald-Oseen extinction but I'm wary of using mathematics for abstraction.

      Peter

      Edwin,

      I think Peter's fundamental idea is that for any two observers O1 and O2 in relative motion with respaect to each other, (i) observer O1 is associated with a physical inertial field I1, and observer O2 with an inertial field I2, and (ii) I1 modulates the velocity of light for O1, and I2 modulates the velocity of light for O2, in such a way that both observers, upon measuring this velocity, agree upon its value - or in other words, the value of c is the same in all inertial frames or fields. Such modulation takes place regardless of whether or not a cosmological preferred frame exists; hence, CSL is independent of, but not incompatible with, the existence of such a frame. If there is a preferred frame, then any observer who is at rest wrt this frame will also be associated with an inertial field that modulates the velocity of light in the appropriate manner; but the inertial field in question is physically and conceptually distinct from the preferred frame.

      As for the question of "where we want to go," I think an important task is to explicate the nature of the quantum mechanism that modulates light's velocity, perhaps by relating this mechanism could be related to some already well-known and well-studied quantum mechanism. I think Peter has made some progress here by talking about inertial fields absorbing and emitting light waves; one question that remains, though, is what guarantees that the emitted light waves always and everywhere have the same velocity c when measured by the relevant observer.

      Hope this helps.

      Willard

      Peter and Willard,

      I'm thinking about what you wrote. I have some ideas and a new, interesting result, but I haven't made it all come together in my head. I hope it comes together soon, and will tell you if (when) it does.

      Peter,

      A few more remarks, but first a question: Do you know whether polarization of the photon E-field is preserved by passing through a plasma? That is, if the photon is vertically polarized 'going in', is it vertically polarized 'coming out', and so for any other polarization. I don't want an opinion, just the facts if they exist.

      I'm sure that this is *not* what you were referring to on page 2 where you state "waves propagate through a dielectric medium by...polarizing the particles." You are surely referring to inducing electric dipole moments. Unless I'm wrong on this, I don't need any more explanation.

      A separate thought-- also in the same paragraph you state "whatever relative speed waves arrive at, they'll be re-emitted at the new local c...". Does this mean you are leaving the door open for a situation in which the local velocities add up to greater than c?

      A further note -- I don't buy the galactic halos as refractive zones of active dark matter. You might want to drop or de-emphasize this argument as it seems unnecessary to your main theme, which would not suffer if my idea of dark matter is correct.

      I'm still working on the topic you and Willard commented on. Finally, every time I read your fine paper it makes more sense. (I'm sure this is true for most well written papers dealing with complex ideas.) So I invite you to reread my paper in light of our discussions.

      Still havin' fun (in honor of Ray Munroe)

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #17

      Edwin

      Thank you. ..In order;

      I'm pretty sure one of my references, or a similar one, covers it but I can't recall all the details. Normally the waves polarise the particles, (though I only switched to the simple word 'polarise' due to all the references, and I'm not entirely happy with it,) But, as in FM, it can be reversed. I'm no expert in the area as all I was interested in was the delay element, which I conceived as having as much of an 'inertial' basis as anything! - a la Constantinos.

      v plus or minus c. Yes, precisely. You just caught a glimpse of the enormous invisible elephant in the room. Whatever other speed would an electron ever emit a 'photon' at?? This is precisely where one too many variables has proved too much for human conceptual thinking power. It has to emit it at it's own 'new' 'c' to complying with SR yes?! And what anyone sees is the light scattered from it, at 'c' yes? Now consider different observers frames. You'll find NOTHING breaches SR or 'c' anywhere. And everything matches ALL observation.

      So v plus or - c can be apparent 'rate of change of position' from another frame, which lets us escape from 100yrs of mysterious elephant dung, limiting the domain of Bells inequality in preventing Locality and Reality. (and all entirely within the SR postulates).

      HALO's. If you'd done the research I have on halo's you'd buy it with your life savings. This IS the same stuff as the FlybyPioVoyager anomaly, NASA well know it's a dense 'plasma', as do Sloane and Planck etc. This is just one of 100's of papers;http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/702/2/1472

      Light CANNOT, EVER get through a plasma cloud without being slowed and refracted subject to density, and the relative speed (co-motion of C fields) gives the Stokes 'up-shifting of frequency. ESA confirmed that yet again from other galaxies only yesterday.

      Light goes through deep space at 'c'. Light also goes through moving galaxies and buses at 'c'.; 'Lensing' Delays of over 3 years!!? (as predicted, and I've predicted we'll find over 10). 'Gravity wells' are just a ridiculous 'patch' up.

      My paper on CD is still under PR consideration at present, but it clarifies a lot of the essay content. I expect they're terrified by possible paradigm change.

      I promise you that bit contains the most sense in the paper. Are we really beyond facing and correcting our biggest errors?

      Have courage

      Peter

      PS. I've re read your paper twice now. The existence of 'my' mechanism is the only falsifiable way to allows your field without contradicting SR. I still agree with almost all, but the other details are only due to the above, and it's easily fine tunable - if you dare risk the crackpot squad!

        Peter, I probably was not specific enough, but I didn't want to bias your answer. I specifically want to know if there is any data that would indicate that vertical (or other) polarized light can enter a plasma and exit as circularly polarized light. Do you know of any such data?

        Edwin. Sorry, no. The only refs I have with the slightest relevance are on metamaterials. Interestingly you may like to check out Martin Wegeners work at Karlsruhe, whose gold helixes can convert light to strong currents subject to whether left or right circularly polarized, mentioned in the latest (v209 No2794) NS.

        Peter

          6 days later

          Hi Peter,

          I'm just thinking about your paper, particularly the local speed of light (c/n) idea. If photons travel through a vacuum, then there really isn't anything to run into/be absorbed by and then re-emitted. Of course, if you pass light through a gas, then the gas molucules re-emit the photons. I like your explanation of the 6c gas jets from M87. Locally to those gas jets, everything traveling c or less. However, non locally, the jet is moving greater than c wrt the black hole. I'm guessing that the photon that travels from the 6c gas jet to the slow moving observer, that photon is going to undergo enormous frequency shifting as it transitions from 6c jet to 0.000001c observer.