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

Peter,

Thanks for your comment! We have more in common than we believe. Including the 'cross to bear'. I too feel an obligation to deliver this 'message' to those that have the resources (both physical and intellectual) to make best use of it. And I too want to move on to others interests (and I have many) once the 'message' is delivered. If I can get this essay to the 'panel of generals' to consider, I will feel totally 'mission accomplished'!

Concerning your DFM, this has always puzzled me. But I am beginning to see how it may fit to my views and results. What I don't quite accept is that these 'discrete fields' are existing and centered around 'particles'. Rather, my view is that energy propagates continuously through a medium (I think many of us now accept this - I call it eta, Edwin calls it C-field, others have called it ether - what ever). But how that physically occurs is by 'accumulation/manifestation', as energy first accumulates to reach an equilibrium level locally than it manifests in space as having moved. This process may be seen as 'continuous/discrete'. As your DFM! With this view, there is no need to talk about already existing 'particles' and 'fields' with boundaries formed of ???? plasma??? that results in refraction. It's your 'compartmentalization' of space into distinct discrete fields/boundaries that has been giving me problems. But I think this view I am now forming (not complete yet) may help me over this.

Peter, I have embarked on this intellectual journey for no other reason than my commitment and passion for Truth and Reason. What ever the consequences, I am prepared to accept. I don't believe in 'afterlife'. But I could have a glass of ouzo with you at some Aegean island and laugh at the whole enterprise of physics!

Have fun! As Ray Munroe often admonishes us ...

Kostas

Peter,

I've read your paper, "Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil".

To the extent that the discrete 'curvatures' of spacetimes of neighboring galaxies are independent, i.e. not interacting, they represent discrete fields. That intergalactic spacetime is expanding whereas discretely localized gravitationally bound regions of space are not provides some indication of the extent of which, universally, spacetime is localized into discrete gravitational fields. It seems to be, on whole, a minority. I suggest that it is a kinetic energy permeating intergalactic spacetime producing the diminishing expansion of the universe that is the principal agent producing the redshift of intergalactic light, simply by physically expanding the linear distance between waves as they propagate.

I'm afraid I cannot see any application of your hypothesis that might be applicable to any alternative interpretation of SNe Ia observational studies. For that I still abide by my previously stated assertion of improper observational perspective.

Jim

Peter,

It is a book, Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Steinhardt and Turok.

"Why the hell are the old guys here still using decrepit 100 year old nonsense physics when there's a more logical and fully consistent answer? It beggars belief. In fact that's all it is,; 'belief.'."

I am an old guy but only recently got into cosmology, since retiring.

In all popular writing that I see about UFO engineering,few seem to apply the time differentials you mention regarding your flight. The doubters seem to think it takes years to reach a destination, for example, over 20 to travel from Gliese 581G, not even thinking about near light-speed travel.

I think we have been visited since ancient times. Does that make me a nut?

Jim Hoover

Constantinos,

You say: "Demystifying people from QM-mysticism has profound physical consequences in their lives!"

Amen to that.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter,

Scattering does not always lead to refraction. In scattering, photon energy is lost, but the velocity remains the same. In refraction the velocity of EM radiation is changed, but energy is conserved. In stellar cores, the density might be high enough to refract gamma rays.

This is a small point. The larger point is inertial frames might not be truly independent. If inertial frames are not independent then "c" might be local and something could violate local "c" and not effect "true" c (which might not be knowable). I look at things a different way, but this is something to think about.

Jeff

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay. I have enjoyed reading your essay (and the nice pictures too!) and the lively discussion in the posts above. The key impression I came away with from your essay is that we agree that `reality' has strongly intermingled digital and analog aspects. I am very sympathetic to the Block Universe concept, at some fundamental level. It will be great to see the development of your ideas into a mathematical framework [physicists as you agree feel more at home when nice ideas are turned into a quantitative scheme :-)].

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Hi, Peter

Thank you for directing me to your paper, which I read with great interest. Thanks also for your appreciation of my own, which is on a completely different level. Your work is over my head, so there is not much response I can offer technically. Your general point that "focusing on duality we may miss more conceptual logic" seems well taken. Wave-particle duality teaches us that these are relative states or descriptions, not absolute ontological categories. Your general framework is very interesting, in a similar spirit to the work of Haisch and Rueda (your reference [20]). Your approach seems an encouraging example of the simple fact that in spite of orthodoxy unresolved fundamental questions do not go away, but continue to resurface in new creative thought.

Very best wishes,

Dan

Peter,

Many of us seem to feel that big change is potentially coming, and many essays are focused on new approaches to physics. My GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

The response from many has been "There has to be SUSY!" But this week's Nature (3 Mar 2011) says that over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

That surely makes clear why the resistance is so strong.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Peter,

Thanks for posting at my paper; I just responded to you there. Glad to see you and Edwin are getting high marks from the community; congratulations!

Best Wishes,

Willard Mittelman

Peter,

We practice our trade and hone our tools. I like your recent comment to Lawrence: "I agree SR simply tells us 'c' is constant IN all frames. I suggest another way of conceiving that; If you're not ON that bus going past you're not IN the same frame. (after all - all light you receive FROM that or any frame you receive at 'c' in your frame, so nothing breaks the rule!!)!"

Someone recently mentioned receiving a photon in an interstellar rocket-ship and wondering how light could 'know' how fast the rocket-ship was traveling.

I think "If you're not ON that bus going past you're not IN the same frame" is one of the simplest and clearest expressions of the essence of the problem.

Like Eckard, I came into this contest thinking that special relativity was a 'done deal', and now have a whole new perception, in which your ideas and the C-field interaction with photon momentum present new perspectives. FQXI truly is a valuable forum.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Peter,

You describe the propagation of light through a medium as discrete intervals of "c" and absorption/ reemission interactions - somewhat like a hurdler who slows slightly to clear a hurdle, but then regains his normal sprinting speed. It sounds as if you are representing some possibly continuous effects with discrete approximations. In principle, one might think that we could improve our digital sampling (beyond a red-laser DVD or CD, beyond the better blue-laser Blu-Ray, and beyond to a large sampling - say 10^41), and "digitize" any "continuous" effect. But such a "digitized" representation might not properly explain interference and non-linear effects such as "feedback".

Are we distorting our view of reality by reducing possibly "continuous" effects into a collection of digital samples?

Regarding the speed of light, the "vacuum" has a speed of light, c = Sqrt(1/eps*mu), where eps is the permitivity of free space (implies the polarization of the vacuum) and mu is the permeability of free space (implies a residual magetization of the vacuum). If the "vacuum" is a continuous vacuum, then we should expect these quantities to have a continuous nature. If we can represent the "vacuum" with the Dirac Sea (as I did in my essay), then this may have "Blu-Ray" type characteristics (a large number of discrete quanta).

There is a visible second-order rainbow caused by a double-internal-reflection within a water drop. This rainbow has colors that are reversed from the normal rainbow, lies outside of the normal rainbow (larger scattering angle), and is dimmer than the normal rainbow. Weather conditions must be nearly perfect to see this phenomenon - the last time I saw it was about a year ago and I even managed to photograph it.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Peter,

Thank you for commenting on my essay. It is really nice to see several correlations in ideas. Your essay is very interesting and you have provided several good thought experiments and examples. It seems your essay has a solid set of core assumptions that are applied to a wide range of relativistic effects.

In my essay I try to define internal motion of particles as being driven by a single sustaining potential, and I tend to evaluate other ideas in relation to the essay's core assumptions. Of course, the most important thing is how well the idea fits with experiment. So I hope you don't mind if my following notes are in relation to my own thoughts instead of the standard theories. I also realize I may not fully understand your ideas, but I'll give it a shot.

I think your core assumptions are pretty well defined in your 3 axioms if I can paraphrase: Particles in space produce a dielectric controlling the speed of light; particles (even a fair distance away) essentially absorb and re-emit photons at the local c; and keeping the theme that objects are spatially extended, the third axiom is that massive bodies are surrounded by a plasma shock with its own dielectric constant.

I think your essay has a fairly unique way of looking at relativity. As I compare it with my essay's core ideas I do think you have captured some of the same flavor. On the changing speed of light, I see a particle as pure motion with its mass determined by the internal velocity being driven by a sustaining potential giving the idea that photons and massive particles are nearly the same (somewhat like Jason Wolfe's idea of everything made from photons). A secondary potential (electromagnetic-gravitational) is produced extending away from the particle that ends up controlling the local speed of c. Surprisingly your idea of an object being spatially extended and controlling the local c is quite similar. My equations seem to indicate the absolute speed change is small (on par with general relativity time dilation) and the primary change comes from the circuitous route caused by electromagnetic acceleration, so I'm not sure how the exact mechanism compares with yours. It is interesting, however, how most other theories rely on a constant speed of c.

On the topic of mass changing in different reference frames, I agree this is possible because if mass is related to the internal velocity of the particle (my essay gives the units and how to convert to kg with the constant G.), the internal velocity can increase, going right along with your idea of changing mass. When viewed in relation to a sustaining potential, the concepts of gravity, mass, and velocity have a common denominator.

I would like to leave off for now by noting how interesting your essay really is, and how much I enjoyed it. It will get a high mark from me soon. It is fun to see the correlations and how your core assumptions have given you a pretty solid view of how things work.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Peter,

I read your essay with interest some time before, but it happened in the weeks when I was having cataract operations. Now that thankfully I have successfully regained my vision (it still needs eyeglasses to get to 20-20 !) I enjoyed reading it again. I totally agree with you regarding the necessity to regard the speed of light in gravitational and other fields as intimately linked to local refractive index changes. It is an important and venerable idea (vide Thomas Young who un-famously considered diffraction as due to a thickening of the air around a mass, and Eddington who interpreted GR that way) that needs to be revamped. As you can see from my own ideas this emerges naturally from considering the vacuum as containing angular momentum, an idea you yourself present in your paper. I also like your intuition regarding the gravitational field "If a massive body were to suddenly stop dead, the field itself continues."

This agrees with my conceptions, and I have tried to imagine the details of a universal ether 'mechanism' that does all of the above and more. Unfortunately I am working alone outside of academia and do not have the skills (not to mention the energy of youth) to simulate, develop and ultimately prove the ideas in my fqxi paper and the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based. I had first explored the gravitation = refractive index idea in an earlier paper of 1993, United Dipole Field Oops the room seems to have acquired angular momentum of its own, a minor earthquake in progress! Ah Einstein's stress tensor has regained its former eigenvalues, or whatever it needed to do to regain its former state - in my theory GR is interpreted differently, only in terms of local changes of ether density, causing a refraction index change - and I can safely sign of with best wishes for your success

Vladimir

Dear Edwin

I like your "I came into this contest thinking that special relativity was a 'done deal'". I too thought that some years ago also about GR, when correspondence with the courageous late Caroline Thompson convinced me that Einstein's Relativity was not sacrosanct. He very cleverly and unnecessarily recast Lorentz and others' ideas where the universe is absolute (space and time) but observation is relative (measured length and clock time) into a theory where the universe is relative (flexible space and time as dimensions) and observation is absolute (fixed c). This worked fine in SR but vastly complicated GR and still causes conceptual problems. In the process he also banished the ether, a substance that is now clamoring to re-enter physics after a hiatus of a century! I explore all of that mostly qualitatively in my essays (see links in another post today in this thread). Cheers

Vladimir