Nadia

Thanks for your very kind offer.

TOKAMAKS. You probably know far more than me of the Tokamak heart of Toroid black holes. They only have one hole but need to suck in and eject the plasma building blocks of galaxies and universes two ways, this provides us with solutions to the 'anomalous' (spiral) quadrupolar asymmetry of the CMBR, Chiral,/tri-axial polarisation, re-ionisation, 'axis of evil', Lithium 7 shortage etc. But I diverge. With Tokamaks (you will know the derivation of the word) we are only reproducing natures most fundamental powerhouse and recycling machines, from the scale of the sub atomic to the universes. A continuous double helical construction (where have we seen something like that before?) of multiple axis dynamism, which I also expect may prove to be the root of spin.

WAVES? These are my true love Nadia, since childhood. I must do some work now, but will definitely revert to speak of waves.

Best wishes, and thanks for your support.

Peter

Thanks Georgina

It's also explainable in the simplest terms (as Einstein predicted) helped by the better understanding your reality gives.

The light pulse moving though a florescent tube on a bus passing by does max 'c' in the tube. The light signals (or photons, as you wish) telling you where the pulse is at at any moment are sent at 'c', and travel at 'c' (or c/n) on the way to your eye or detector.

The bus is a different inertial field (frame). No matter how fast it goes nothing in REALITY does more than 'c'. No shrinking of the bus or Lorentz transformation is needed to ensure that is the case. It's simple logic. Only observation from the same frame is valid without correction. The postulates of SR are correct, just the enforced 'assumption' of no ('3rd/Preferred') background frame was wrong. (but it's still correct no 'absolute' frame exists - even the CMBR rest frame).

One of the links I just passed to James identifies why and how we went off track. We hadn't been to space at the time so didn't have the information to solve the 'Chinese puzzle' of constant light speed.

You'll remember my essay last year. I hope I've explained it better this year?

Best wishes.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #179

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the comments on my blog site!

I also like falsifiability. Chapters 4 and 6 of my book tie into experimental data, and are falsifiable. The obvious problem is that most everything that I have done since is so speculative that it isn't yet obvious to me if it is or isn't falsifiable (although the lattices that I use are fundamental to Solid State Physics). I like the fact that some of my ideas may tie into Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticle mass-ratio experimental results. I also like Vladimir Tamari's ideas that may tie into Gingras' magnetic spin ice quasiparticle experimental results.

Do you have an infinite number of buses and bus stops with an infinite number of discrete reference frames, or am I way off-base?

I use stacks of cannonballs as analogies for fermions because it is easier to describe than an FCC lattice. I think that the bosons are the reciprocal lattice and behave like "struts" between centers of cannonballs in our 3-D space.

Yes - I am aware of the "slingshot" method for speeding up space probes. My van would probably fall apart...

I also like tokamaks. I worked on the TEXT tokamak at the University of Texas, Austin in 1981-82.

I have wild ideas that might unite several of our ideas (you, me, Crowell, Gibbs, Lisi, Castel, Sreenath, Tamari, Leshan, Duforney, perhaps Lowey and Klingman). It goes something like this:

A static Black Hole does not collapse on its singularity because a buckyball-shaped lattice of spacetime (or quantum gravity) prevents said collapse. In the case of a rotating Black Hole (most stars rotate so most Black Holes should as well), torsion effects cause a pair of nested buckyball lattices to morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus in a rotating (rotation = time along Steve Duforney's ideas?) and apparently 3-D space with 120 lattice sites. Each of these 120 sites, contains one of Vladimir Tamari's tetrahedra (which may also be related to Gingras and Section 7.2 of my book) which are also rotating (another time dimension?) in an (another set of spatial dimensions?) apparently 3-D space. Along the lines of my ideas (and Laurent Nottale's), these different 3-D shapes - torus and tetrahedra - may exist at different spatial scales (I suspect that the tetrahedra are much smaller than the torus) with different time scales (different rates of rotation for torus and tetrahedra). In this case, the Black Hole "singularity" is at the center of the donut hole, and is either empty (like one of Constantin Leshan's quantum spacetime holes) or permanently confined - we will never know.

Carbon-60 buckyballs have superconductor properties that expel electric fields. Wouldn't it be cool if these spacetime (or quantum gravity) lattices (buckyball or lattice-like torus) had properties that allowed them to expel gravitational fields? And wouldn't this be close to some of Klingman's GEM-like ideas?

This model contains 120x4=480 degrees-of-freedom plus basis vectors (at least 8? two 3-d spaces and 2 times?). This looks a lot like an E8xE8* ~ SO(32) where one E8 is strictly real, and the other E8* is stricly imaginary (Theoretically, the TOE needs complex representations whether we like it or not as this may be the most appropriate way to include CP symmetry violation - recall that tachyons have imaginary mass). We require imaginary numbers for the mathematical modeling to be complete, however we also admit that we might not be able to observe this part of "reality" (although we may use the Kramers-Kronig Relation for some implications), and therefore anticipate that any observer should be able to measure half (at most) of the dynamic variables present in any given experiment.

One of these E8's is a corrected version of Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE (he never should have had bosons and fermions in the same lattice representation - they should be in reciprocal lattices to one another). If we break these E8's into H4's (such that E8~H4xH4*), then we may have an H4xH4* representation that is similar to Edwin Klingman's 4 particles and 4 fields - I don't think that Ed is necessarily wrong - I think that his model might use the same triality symmetry for color and generations, and is not complete.

Each point in the toroidal lattice is the end of a string (that should be rotating in response to the tetrahedra). Within the Black Hole, these strings expand outwards as Sreenath's logarithmic spirals until the scale is "diluted" enough that we have a reasonably flat, continuously-differentiable spacetime outside of the Event Horizon.

If these strings also rotate (as implied above), and have the dimensional (probably extra-dimensional because it has different scales for gravity and electromagnetism?) equivalent of "screw-threads", then the strings may behave like Alan Lowey's Archimedes' Screw idea to transfer force along the direction of the string (now an infinitely-thin "flexible screw").

Please wrap your brain around that and let me know what you think?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Nadia

    ...and WAVES (Also see post to Ken Wharton)

    I feel they're largely quite poorly understood, though a little better in optics, due to complexity.

    From testing wave barriers on the beach as a child to representing the UK at yachting gave me a good intuitive feel for superposed surface waves, from tiny ripples telling of wind, through those that seriously effect boat speed, to tsunami's and equinoxial tides, all interfering, in a flowing medium at different depths and vectors. I learned to anticipate the steep face or flat patch before it's created to accelerate or feather the boat. No wonder we see the difficulty of finding a fixed reference at any point and moment as uncertainty! For the brainpower we have it certainly is. The relationships of energy, velocity, f, lambda and Doppler shift are real when approaching a windward mark and turning to run downwind or reach across them using face inclination and gravity, and they are different in all approach frames, or when drifting, or at anchor. Yet these are the simplest!

    Sound waves are not all about 'billiard balls' nudging each other, and light waves are not all about photons. We may find they're rather more similar than we thought. Certainly waves are made of particles and particles of waves.

    I see waves as harmonics and rainbows, and perhaps empathise most with Huygens, Fresnel and Schrödinger. Motion is oscillation is inertia is matter is waves. It may be a while until we understand what is waving to us and why, but it is something continuous if by comparison to 'ponderable mass'. Is it part of reality? Of course. It gives us the complex discretion that we and reality are modelled with.

    That's scratched the surface of waves as I feel them Nadia. Was that ok for you?

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #181

    Peter,

    You mentioned that: "As Georgina reminds us, the subject here is REALITY, and maths is abstraction."

    I do not see math as being an abstraction. However, my question about "Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?" was meant to apply directly to your explanation about accumulating mass as velocity is increased. If that extra mass was accumulated linearly then the relativistic effects would not hold. So, I assume that your point is that mass is added on by the accumulated "shock wave" and that this accumulation is very minor for most of the increase in velocity, but, as the particle approaches light speed, there is a great increase in "shock wave" material that greatly increases the mass. What I was wondering was: What support, theory would be welcome here, is there to show that the accumulation of "virtual particles" follows a relativistic curve? I was looking for an explanation that did not rely upon referring to observed results. Those results may be caused by something else. Each explanation has to find its own logic so that the result may be predicted. If you think my logic here is incorrect please point that out.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #182

    Hi Peter,

    Good to see you again this year. It seems to me that you progressed in your "System of the World" description. I like this essay more than last year's, especially the first part.

    I like the following sentences:

    "Separate disciplines are imposed by man yet all nature must be connected. Too often we say for our own clarity that a phenomena is 'not connected' to another."

    "Wave oscillations can modulate particle oscillation and vice versa."

    "Whatever relative speed waves arrive at they'll be reemitted, or scattered, at the new local c through the voids in the medium."

    "Particles absorb signals, re-emitting them at the local c."

    But when clocks enter the game, I am lost. As you said "Niels Bohr taught a young Heisenberg that knowing how instruments work was crucial". I really need a description of the physical mechanism of the clocks in order to follow the rest your reasoning: how do you count the ticks, motion of electrons, emission of photons... So I can't say anything sound about the rest of the essay except that I like it when you take "physical" examples like the fast flowing stream.

    Best,

    Arjen

    • [deleted]

    • Post #183

    James

    You say; "I do not see math as being an abstraction".

    I'm suggesting that our long evolved assumption that maths is naturally reality is itself what has kept us from the truth. Points and lines are not real but abstractions. Descartres xyz co-ordinates were conceived as 'describing' a body, and Einstein correctly specified them as 'rigidly attached to a body'. But we forgot. Moving points invalidate geometry and time invalidated 4D space. But we abstracted all to numbers, and again forgot the need to reverse the process. I'm just approaching it the way Einstein did, by thought, but with 100 years better information.

    In logic, just one tiniest wrong initial assumption can invalidate a whole theory and 100 years of physics. Maths is one way to describe reality, but easy to trust too much or abuse. I suggest Charles Dodgeson was right, as soon as we forget maths is abstraction and forget to 'remormalise' it we end up in Alice's wonderland wondering why physics is in two giant halves that won't fit together, twins are older than each other and space is full of anomalies.

    Einstein said "we won't solve our problems with the same kind of thinking that created them." Bragg thought similarly. I agreed and learned a different way, with conceptual visualisation, logic, and Reality, the subject of this essay. It means there's quite a gauntlet to run, but my family motto is "I have the strength of ten men as I am pure in heart."

    A bit sickly, but hey ho!..you can't change them. You also asked;

    "However, my question about "Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?" was meant to apply directly to your explanation about accumulating mass as velocity is increased. If that extra mass was accumulated linearly then the relativistic effects would not hold. So, I assume that your point is that mass is added on by the accumulated "shock wave" and that this accumulation is very minor for most of the increase in velocity, but, as the particle approaches light speed, there is a great increase in "shock wave" material that greatly increases the mass. What I was wondering was: What support, theory would be welcome here, is there to show that the accumulation of "virtual particles" follows a relativistic curve? I was looking for an explanation that did not rely upon referring to observed results. Those results may be caused by something else. Each explanation has to find its own logic so that the result may be predicted. If you think my logic here is incorrect please point that out.

    Yes I agree with your logic, and that is what has of course been assumed. And No. In fact I was wrong, though non critically. Eckard correctly pointed out that the curve is not of course exponential. Essentially - for the propagation I've assumed we can roughly use a similar curve and orientate it differently for each of the 3 functions. However, there are a number of other factors which will make accurate calculation impossible, so logic and experiment can only be backed up by guesstimates!

    1. The size of the mass. A bunch of protons the size of Earth propagates more than a single electron or smaller bunch.

    2. The background (accelerator magnetic/solar wind/CMBR field). Which varies.

    3. The size of the pipe, and relationship to other mass. I don't think Earth's in a pipe, but at the LHC as soon as the moving bunch starts hitting the pipe wall the propagation rate is boosted by secondary Pe's.

    And probably more, and Yes, there should be the opportunity for much more work to be done here, at the LHC and with maths. (Could it even save the Tevatron?)

    Did you disagree, or have any other thought on how virtual particles might pop up from a void at up to 10^13/cm^-3 due to something 'moving' through nothing? (Current theory, when considered, seem to assume they 'come from' the em field or pipe walls).

    Best wishes

    Peter

    (Copied from Rays SuperString - response to excellent post above)

    Ray

    That looks absolutely spot on to me, I think it's a done deal. Some may accuse you of foolishly missing Buriden's ass, but as two fall out of the equation anyway you end up with SUSY.

    The only issue is it's now precisely equivalent to the theory in Tommy Gilbertson's essay! How fast are your publishers?

    Having fun

    Peter

    Arjen

    Great to hear from you. Hope you'll be Dr D soon.

    Time seems to transform very simply in the DFM. (Actually that's an assumption as I haven't thought much about the details til now, but it's a good test so here goes); Before consideration of whether or not oscillation rate of a clock somewhere else changes if YOU 'move', or vice versa;

    If you accelerate with your clock it reads the same. You're observing it from the only 'valid' frame, the SAME one (as noted above).

    Simply; If a clock accelerates away from you it slows down. By the time it's 30,000m away it's a second slow!

    If it comes back towards you it speeds up again! (the time dilates as the light blue shifts). If I'm right, when it arrives back it tells the right time again.

    If it flies on past you? - I think you can guess!

    There are some good ref's and a paper by me on GPS linkable from the Ref's. There's a lot of misunderstanding, the best ones are probably from NASA's Dan Gezari. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (2009) I think if we sent 2 round the globe they read the same on return. (the full 'clocks round the globe' story is one physics needs to forget).

    If we just consider the light from the clock face (or digits) physics IS simple! like the man said. If you think about it, time not only dilates but expands. (diffraction dilates it in the plasma anyway of course, and it will vary subject to observer vector in the CMBR rest frame - or gas). That gives Einstein lensing/Shapiro delay.

    I hope that doesn't prove to be a load of cods when I compute it tonight!

    There IS an interesting take on contraction, (and expansion) kind of to do with Doppler shifting loosely bound mass. Can I get you on the case with that? Let me know if you can work it our from this simple video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

    Very best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #186

    Peter,

    I wasn't thinking in terms of including a pipe, although that is more realistic than just speaking theoretically. Thank you for your reply. I am still thinking things through. Your know, even though we both say that the speed of light varies, our explanations are very different. But, you are doing very well. Good luck.

    With regard to mathematics, I have seen some things said that I didn't agree with while I perused the essays. So, I posted this remark in my own forum:

    "As I read through some essays, I find the basis of math to be misrepresented. Mathematics is not abstract. It is a collection of shortcuts for counting. That which is being counted may or may not be an abstraction, but counting is not an abstraction.

    Another point: Calculus is not based upon instantaneous anything. I saw it said in a forum that "Caculus is based upon instantaneous speed." So, I wish to affirm that calculus is based upon the right triangle. It is not based upon a dot."

    You know I am not an expert. I am not a physicist. My opinion is that Einstein was a valuable intellect, but, not correct about some of the most important conclusions. I think, he is most responsible for opening the theoretical door so that theory is no longer earthbound, but, has become a race into theory heaven. Imagination rules. The danger, from my point of view, is that even purely imaginative speculation can succeed in producing successful predictions about reality. The reason is that all professionally developed theory has to rely upon patterns in empirical evidence. Those patterns can be extrapolated to suggest predictions. The theoretical interpretations that are attached to the meanings of those patterns can be wrong and yet the patterns can still be used for successful extrapolations.

    Best wishes for your efforts.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #187

    p.s. - Ed and Peter might want to read B N Sreenath's essay. Sreenath tries to build an equation for Quantum Gravity - in similar fashion to Ed's Master Equation. Sreenath's description of equivalence is similar to Peter's (acceleration comes in discrete energy packets - each of these packets would represent a different inertial frame and a different bus in Peter's essay and analogies - if I understand them correctly...).

    Have Fun!

    Hi, Peter

    I came across a news article in physicsworld.com that might be of interest to you, "Doppler Shift Seen in Reverse": http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45366

    Best wishes,

    Dan

      Peter,

      In reference to the argument put forth by Ray Munroe in Tom's forum that my derivation of Planck's Law (without using energy quanta) in my essay is circular ...

      Here is Ray's argument! Judge which argument is 'circular'!

      1)Planck's Law is derived using 'energy quanta'

      2)Energy quanta is a fact of Nature

      3)Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law does not use energy quanta

      4)Therefore, Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law must have used energy quanta.

      This is the kind of 'logic' that characterizes 'metaphysical belief'.

      Good luck to all heretics!

      Constantinos

      P.S. I am about to post a paper that mathematically proves the following proposition, using the same ideas in my essay: IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

      Dan

      FANTASTIC! Many thanks, that confirms an effective prediction of the Discrete Field Model, discussed in my Chromatic Dispersion Paper (about harmonics, Huygens Principle and why rainbows invert when just out of our visible wave band. Seemingly bizarre but true. Their method didn't allow transmission speed to be easily checked, which allows me to also FURTHER PREDICT HERE effective superconductivity - or superluminal phase velocity of the red shifted waves within the matrix (subject to the matrix speed, which I haven't read about yet).

      I'm also not surprised to see yet more anticipatory plagiarism, it's seemed rife ever since I mislaid Matti's 'Wells' machine -sorry Matti. Some Russian chap first predicted something similar in the 1960's! Someone will be telling me next that George Stokes got his knighthood for predicting something like the DFM in the mid 1900's!

      Peter

      Constantinos

      I agree. That definitely sound a little inverse! I did see Ray Munro's post but didn't quite follow the logic. I hope you're discussing it direct - I'll keep tabs. It certainly doesn't conflict with Rays latest theory, which seems to proves equivalent to Tommy Gilbertson's. I think they're in a race to publish!

      Your latest proof is even more interesting, as the mathematical equivalent and proof to the pure logic base of the DFM. When and where can we see it? Have a chat with Chistian Corda? or use Phil Gibbs well run viXra preprint archive. But of course that's for 'long range' em energy transmission, and no-one can stop your waves getting together in bunches to cause local mayhem and confusion. Again it's consistent with my CD paper (see reply to Dan). Now a field is allowed the long range model of the photon as a 'particle' is of course redundant. I hope you get in the top 35 as it does need studying.

      Have you also checked stochastic Levy distribution curves, which would naturally be similar. In spectroscopy this is equivalent to the Van der Waals profile of the frequency variable case.

      I think we've hit the heart of the essay subject, tightly defining when matter condenses; a phase transition by and for interaction, i.e. change. Now just the last 90% of the answer to clear up! This includes what to call the (dis)continuum condensate if it's not ether. Though as Edwin's hit the front we may be sticking with 'C field'!

      Best of luck squeezing in. I agree you deserve to and it would be a massive shame if you didn't.

      Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #192

        Dear Peter,

        I reread Sreenath's essay yesterday. I also need to reread your essay, but think I see some similarities between your perspectives.

        Tommy Gilbertson's essay? The only obvious similarities that Tommy and I have are:

        1) we believe in having fun! and

        2) I could explain the Soul or Consciousness in terms of self-similar scales and many Universes all in communication with each other (perhaps via tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light, and communicate action-at-a-distance phenomena). Perhaps the Dream is our Soul's awareness of alternate realities and alternate scales. Perhaps the Soul itself has a tachyonic nature (what if the Soul is the Kramers-Kronig transform of our physical selves?). But I don't publish stuff like that. I already use too many pentagrams - if I started talking about Souls and Dreams, then I would probably be classified as a "witchdoctor"...

        Dear Peter and Constantinos,

        I will keep this short because I don't think it is appropriate to monopolize Peter's thread with my little disagreement with Constantinos.

        Constantinos' Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that they (Constantinos and Bose) agree on the form of their equations and their agreement with experimental data.

        My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore Constantinos is legit using this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

        Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Peter:

        Thanks for the post on my essay thread.

        You´ve got the points you asked for (all of them, because I really liked your essay). And tell your friends, no one has gotten poor by asking. We still have 4 days, and any comment on my essay will be thanked.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #195

        Dear Peter

        I did not intend to message here but I wish to congratulate you and thank you. I had seen something but was not sure what. The power and implications hit me in thinking it through this morning. It was such an enlightening.

        You have explained the Einstein said of C and the laws of physics constant IN each frame. If we go there that is what we find, if we do not we will not. Why are you not ahead in this contest by 100 years? They have not yet read and understood your words. This is a new start of science.

        I wish you well and all success, which I know you must have, and thank you.

        Petra

        Petra

        Thank you for your kind words, yes, it should indeed be a re-start for science, and hopefully not take another 100 years. But these are early days, and you have vision to have seen it before most, It fills me with pleasure that you have.

        Please do help by spreading the word if you are in a position to dare.

        Best wishes

        Peter