2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

Hi Jason,

You've made some very astute statements. First you point out that "one particle is its own reference frame." Peter has quoted Einstein above saying much the same thing, and you can look at the figure on page 6 in my essay to see how this fits my theory.

But my favorite of your comments is:

"...redshift reduces the frequency, and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried..."

I hadn't thought of that. I asked on another thread, months ago, just exactly when it became gospel that information is never lost? I have quantum mechanics texts from the 1930's (Dirac) to the 1980's (Sakurai) and QED and QCD texts from the 90's and 2000's, and I don't recall seeing in any of them that 'information is never lost'. No one answered my question.

But assuming this to be the case, you then cover this case by saying:

"But if the photons are again blue shifted, that should recover the information content."

Jason, that's a great statement, but it begs the question: Where was the information stored in the intervening period? Do you have a mechanism in mind, or an opinion as to a possible storage mechanism that does not operate faster than the speed of light?

By the way, did you read that somewhere? You seem to have thought of it right off the bat. I don't think I've ever read it, but it's obvious once you think of it.

Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created.

I've more comments, but I'm interested in your remarks. I'll probably post a summary of this on my page, as it fits well with where I'm going.

Thanks again, and good to see you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter, you say that, "The information, as the energy, is only compressed or stretched, never lost or gained. It has to be conserved."

I'm not sure it's that simple, but I'll think more about it.

By the way, I'm a lot closer to posting what you and I and Willard discussed. The focus on photons instead of massive particles has been very rewarding.

As for toroidal black holes, that is interesting. I'm convinced that particles are toroidal, based on the C-field and Calabi-Yau manifolds, largely due to the need for a null Chern class. Why do you insist black holes are so?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwoin,

I can't quite remember the details, but the experiment had to do with polarizers and how they could be described with quantum mechanics. If you shine a laser onto a vertical polarizer, then a horizontal polarizer, all the light appears to vanish. But if you place a third polarizer that is horizontal, it recovers the light, or something like that. It's been so long and I don't know what to google for.

But it left me with the idea that the light was not blocked by the first two polarizers. A third polarizer could recover the previously vanished light. The fact that you could bring the light back left me with the impression that it still exists. That's why I believe that physics is implemented with photons AND WAVE-FUNCTIONS.

I sure hope you can think of the name of the experiment.

Dear Edwin,

Sorry I mispelled your name.

I think this is what I was remembering.

Let's say that a laser/light/photons pass through an optical system. They start out as \Psi and end up as \Psi'. Let the optical system be described as

D such that, \Psi_{end}=D\Psi

[math]\Psi_{end}=D\Psi[/math]

Let the optical system consist of

[math]D = CBB^{-1}A[/math]

As you'll notice, B and B^{-1} cancel out. Somehow, light that is blocked at B^{-1} reappears after B cancels out B^{-1}.

So where is the information/light hidden between B^{-1} and B?

One of the properties of wave-functions is that they can cancel out. This is one of the reasons I think that (1) the quantum vacuum is made out of wave-functions, and (2) that space-time is emergent from the quantum vaccum. Space-time is made out of wave-functions.

In the case of redshift losing information, but gaining it back after blueshift, the information was never lost. I think the information remains within the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum, hidden until there is enough blue shift to express the information. Can loss of information due to redshift bare any similiarity to loss of focus (bluriness)?

You asked: "Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created."

A new photon is one that is emitted from an atom. That same atom probably absorbed an incoming photon. But what happens to the information carried by the incoming photon?

In my opinion, there is nebulous quantum activity that is unmeasureable and undetectable. Much of it is noise, junk, artifacts of information chunkage, and maybe an occasional hidden signal.

It would be a great experiment to try.

Peter,

You must learn to trust the invariance of the speed of light. Trust the photon.

I've been thinking about the time dilation derivation. The observer watches the train go by. The observer sees a redshifted laser bounce from floor to ceiling (on the train), because... the observer observes a wider angle view. The technician on board the train can look straight ahead at the beam, and not move his head or eyes. But the observer on the ground has to track the beam, with his eyes, across a 30 degree angular range.

But what is the secret to time dilation? That other reference frame is really dilated.

If the technician on the train watches the observer on the ground go by, how does the techniican know that he is the slow aging twin, and not the observer on the ground?

If I take a 9v battery, and hook the positive terminal to ground and let the negative end float, why does ground stay ground, and the negative end becomes -9v? I think it's the same idea.

could it be a majority rule that determines what is at rest? In other words, is time dilation polarity (sorry to introduce such a wierd terminology). By polarity, I mean, which twin ages slowly and which twin ages fast. Time dilation should have a polarity based upon which end has more mass-energy.

Jason,

I'm not sure whether you speak partial differential equations or not, so I'll try to express the final equation in my essay in English.

The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

What is shown in the derivation, but not explicitly shown in the final equation is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

Because you are very interested in time dilation, I thought that I would try to turn you on to this (quantum) way of looking at it.

Forgive me if you are an expert in partial differential equations, and simply let my explanation remain for non-experts who are interested in time dilation in a simpler way that it is typically explained.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I'm trying to finish my essay this weekend. A lot of what you said is very very interesting. Yes, I speak partial differential equations. I have a BS in physics with lots of math courses.

I derived (wrote down the answer from heuristic thinking) a gravitational time dilation equation using the Schwartzchild radius for a photon that falls from point A to point B. I'm trying to argue that particles with mass accelerate, but massless particles (photons) frequency shift. Feel free to shoot me an email at wulphstein@gmail.com.

I'll bet you have some really cool stuff.

Peter

An excellent essay, refreshing to read and massively enlightening. A real revalation. It seems to me the content is worth a book, or series! which would drag physics 100 years on. I'm off to do some more re-thinking.

I'm happy to give you the highest score. I hope to be back to ask questions.

Matt

Hi All ,

Good luck in this contest Peter, interesting essay.

But where are Constantinos and Georgina ?

Regards

Steve

Peter,

I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to your essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) Please read it through a few times and then I'd be interested in your comments.

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Edwin Eugene Klingman

what do you say Peter,why you say that? you are a real "genius thinker physicist"and your essay is very interesting,I bother you smetimes but you are very creative also,many people I think likes reading your posts.

Don't stop dear friends, never,you are both of you, very very imaginatives and creatives.The 3 points of Jason are relevant....when the sorting of light is taken in a BH.The gravity fractalizes the light by its superimposings and fields.

Don't stop your creativity and research of truth.

Ps Jason you are right , the space and the mass and the light are purelly the same in the BEC at mu humble opinion.

Best

Steve

Peter,

Having worked extensively for 5 years on the C-field, I tend to forget that non-mathematical physicists sometime have a very hard time visualizing the term

[(del) cross (vector1)=(vector2)].

The cross product works at right angles to the vectors on either side of it, so that vector2 is orthogonal (perpendicular) to both del and vector1. And "del" is an operator that tells how things spread in space, a difficult concept on its own.

Do you know how a line with electric current flowing through it induces a magnetic field around it? The gravito-magnetic field (the C-field) will be induced around a mass-current in like manner. But mass current, mv, is mass time velocity v, which is momentum, and although photons don't have rest mass, they aren't at rest, so they have momentum. That's what induces the C-field circulation.

To try to get pictures in your head, go to "Magnetic Field" on Wikipedia, and click to section 5.1 in the Contents: "Magnetic field due to moving charges and electric currents". The first picture, illustrating the right-hand-rule shows the magnetic field around a current. If the arrow is the photon, the gravito-magnetic field induced will look the same.

I am both surprised and impressed that you were able to work out the principles in your essay without much math and disappointed that you don't understand my paper. I though you'd be jumping up and down by now, because it is exactly the answer you are looking for.

There are other aspects of the C-field interaction with photons that I'm working on now, but this paper contains the theory and ideas that you need. After you look at Wikipedia, if you have any question, let's discuss them.

Willard may also be able to help here, but I think he's in academia, and may not want to go out on a limb about the C-field being strong enough to behave as I have described.

In any event, I'm grateful to you for leading me in this direction, with your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Peter,

One of the problems in General Relativity is reconciling the Equivalence Principle and Tidal Gravity. So I am curious to know how you would answer the following question. Keep the answer simple, as I am not that bright.

(This is paraphrased from a post to Jason.)

The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless (zero-g), and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity (inertial frames). But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides. However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small would you have to be to ignore tidal gravity completely, that is, to consider yourself to be in an inertial frame of reference falling freely towards the black hole?

All the best,

Robert

The mention of 'local realism' has taken a startling turn with Joy Christian's work here. I go into details elsewhere, but if Christian's work is correct, then all of the arguments based on so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality are incorrect [or 'not even wrong', as Pauli would say.]

This does not contradict Willard's comment above, but is relevant to my essay and I think to Peter's.

Edwin Eugene Klingman