CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]

TOPIC: Is Kinematics Compatible With Field Symmetries? by Stephen M Sycamore [refresh]

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT

Essay Abstract



An investigation is undertaken of the basis and implications of space-time kinematics. An understanding of the drawbacks and limitations of their use is sought. The possibility of addressing the same problems using the classical methodology of dynamics in rigorous terms is evaluated and the necessary means to make the Maxwell equations invariant in situations of moving bodies or across moving frames is explored. Further exploration leads to a derivation of the relativistic energy-momentum relations within purely 3 dimensional space and independent time using only the Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force equation.



Author Bio



The author studied Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science at Western Washington University. After graduation, he decided to pursue an independent path of the study with a focus on an understanding of the underpinnings of physical theory and practice across disciplines. A book and papers are being prepared which present some initial results of the study as it applies to Electrodynamics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Historical factors are considered and an attempt is made to develop new mathematical models and procedures and to unify the use of models in areas where they are current held to be disparate.



Download Essay PDF File



An investigation is undertaken of the basis and implications of space-time kinematics. An understanding of the drawbacks and limitations of their use is sought. The possibility of addressing the same problems using the classical methodology of dynamics in rigorous terms is evaluated and the necessary means to make the Maxwell equations invariant in situations of moving bodies or across moving frames is explored. Further exploration leads to a derivation of the relativistic energy-momentum relations within purely 3 dimensional space and independent time using only the Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force equation.The author studied Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science at Western Washington University. After graduation, he decided to pursue an independent path of the study with a focus on an understanding of the underpinnings of physical theory and practice across disciplines. A book and papers are being prepared which present some initial results of the study as it applies to Electrodynamics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Historical factors are considered and an attempt is made to develop new mathematical models and procedures and to unify the use of models in areas where they are current held to be disparate.

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT





I found little ontological basis for resolution of some of the knottier problems in rationalising observation, and am unable to comment on the veracity of your maths, but the brilliance and veracity of your findings as far as they went shone out so brightly that the above fell into the shadows. I sense a high score coming on!



You will find an ontological analogue of your essay in mine, from a slightly different vista (and language) and lacking most of the essential mathematical basis you provide, though extending to address matters of Unification, Space-Time etc. As an astronomer I also find significant astrophysical falsification.



You'll find a number of other consistent essays here, including Kingsley-Nixey who reviews and lists others.



I critically agree your observation that "Lorentz covariance applied to time and spatial relationships is too restrictive as a constraint to be generally applied to field expressions for elementary particles or to serve as an underlying basis for their determination."



You may not recognise the view from my approach immediately, but quickly will. I use Proper Time rules and delta lambda on detection, analysing frequency from different observer frames and deriving two distinct cases instead of the assumed one, of more than one phenomena.



I'm very interested in whether you found the same commonality as I, and of my own basic formula conserving c, energy, (and the wave'function') locally via the Doppler formulations. I'd also like to identify any present divergence.



I hope you don't mind Shakespeare!



Best wishes



Peter



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT



I was almost going to buy a small refracting scope this spring, being inspired by the beauty of Venus as it swung near Jupiter, even from just the naked eye.



Thanks for your interest and cheers!



Steve



Hi Peter, Shakespeare sounds intriguing. I'll take a look at your paper and see what I can make out of it.I was almost going to buy a small refracting scope this spring, being inspired by the beauty of Venus as it swung near Jupiter, even from just the naked eye.Thanks for your interest and cheers!Steve StephenI found little ontological basis for resolution of some of the knottier problems in rationalising observation, and am unable to comment on the veracity of your maths, but the brilliance and veracity of your findings as far as they went shone out so brightly that the above fell into the shadows. I sense a high score coming on!You will find an ontological analogue of your essay in mine, from a slightly different vista (and language) and lacking most of the essential mathematical basis you provide, though extending to address matters of Unification, Space-Time etc. As an astronomer I also find significant astrophysical falsification.You'll find a number of other consistent essays here, including Kingsley-Nixey who reviews and lists others.I critically agree your observation that "Lorentz covariance applied to time and spatial relationships is too restrictive as a constraint to be generally applied to field expressions for elementary particles or to serve as an underlying basis for their determination."You may not recognise the view from my approach immediately, but quickly will. I use Proper Time rules and delta lambda on detection, analysing frequency from different observer frames and deriving two distinct cases instead of the assumed one, of more than one phenomena.I'm very interested in whether you found the same commonality as I, and of my own basic formula conserving c, energy, (and the wave'function') locally via the Doppler formulations. I'd also like to identify any present divergence.I hope you don't mind Shakespeare!Best wishesPeter

Tom Phipps wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT





report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 22:52 GMT



May I ask you to check whether or not



Sincerely,



Eckard Blumschein



report post as inappropriate Dear Tom Phipps,May I ask you to check whether or not my essay derives a largely correct and possibly important suspicion from your papers?Sincerely,Eckard Blumschein

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:57 GMT



Your essay was more or less next on my list to read and consider. I'll very likely have comments to post in the forum for your essay soon.



With best wishes,



Steve



Hello Eckard,Your essay was more or less next on my list to read and consider. I'll very likely have comments to post in the forum for your essay soon.With best wishes,Steve

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT



As far as I can judge, the mathematics of your essay is excellently readable without numbered equations. More importantly, it leads to conclusions that are relevant to the topic. Thomas Phipps also suggested to reinstall Hertzian convective time derivatives. Most likely he did not get aware of my posting after more than a month. I only quoted his 2012 Apeiron paper. Did you read his 1993 paper in Physics Essays?



Is the relationship (v_phase)(v_group)=c^2 really well known? I did not realize that Nimtz even mentioned it.



Anyway, I am looking forward reading your desired comments on at least one out of my five figures. Fig. 5 tries to reveal an experimental underpinning of your already fully convincing theoretical result.



Best (rate)



Eckard



report post as inappropriate Hello Steve,As far as I can judge, the mathematics of your essay is excellently readable without numbered equations. More importantly, it leads to conclusions that are relevant to the topic. Thomas Phipps also suggested to reinstall Hertzian convective time derivatives. Most likely he did not get aware of my posting after more than a month. I only quoted his 2012 Apeiron paper. Did you read his 1993 paper in Physics Essays?Is the relationship (v_phase)(v_group)=c^2 really well known? I did not realize that Nimtz even mentioned it.Anyway, I am looking forward reading your desired comments on at least one out of my five figures. Fig. 5 tries to reveal an experimental underpinning of your already fully convincing theoretical result.Best (rate)Eckard

show all replies (1 not shown)

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT



Thanks so much for your careful consideration. I believe I've read most of Tom Phipps papers. If you find his methods useful and his arguments powerfully convincing, as many do who consider his material thoroughly, then you'll certainly want to read his latest book "Old Physics For New". An earlier book "Heretical Verities" deals with many of those items from a slightly different angle, but more importantly contains a very penetrating investigation of certain aspects of Quantum Theory.



Anyone who has studied de Broglie theory should recognize the equation you mention. Also, I believe most plasma physicists recognize it as well as many who work extensively with waves. That is a general relation (not unique to only EM waves).



I'll visit you're essay very shortly.



Steve



Dear Eckard,Thanks so much for your careful consideration. I believe I've read most of Tom Phipps papers. If you find his methods useful and his arguments powerfully convincing, as many do who consider his material thoroughly, then you'll certainly want to read his latest book "Old Physics For New". An earlier book "Heretical Verities" deals with many of those items from a slightly different angle, but more importantly contains a very penetrating investigation of certain aspects of Quantum Theory.Anyone who has studied de Broglie theory should recognize the equation you mention. Also, I believe most plasma physicists recognize it as well as many who work extensively with waves. That is a general relation (not unique to only EM waves).I'll visit you're essay very shortly.Steve



hide replies There are many paths to a realization that the Lorentz transformations (LT) have fatal flaws as physics. This essay provides one of the more mathematically sophisticated ways. A central point brought out here is that Maxwell's equations, modified by the replacement of partial time derivatives with total time derivatives, become invariant under the Galilean inertial transformation, so that covariance under the LT is not the only way to express a relativity principle for inertial motions. Einstein's approach, based on rigorous preservation of Maxwell's unmodified equations, has long needed a rival, in order to correct the false impression, widespread among physical theorists, that no rival is possible.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT





In section 5, v is the velocity of the receiving electron in the inertial frame where the electron was initially at rest before it encountered the incident electric and magnetic fields. The text "and v is the relative velocity between the emitting or disturbing particle particle and that of the particle involved in a measurement" in the sentence "The force on the electron



is F = me dv/dt = e (E + v × B) where me and e are the mass and charge of the



electron and v is the relative velocity between the emitting or disturbing particle particle and that of the particle involved in a measurement." needs to be removed as it is not correct. The later sentence "We will assume that the measurement particle is initially at rest." sets the frame of reference to the inertial frame of the electron before it started moving in response to the incident fields. Unfortunately there was not enough time to do a more thorough check of the essay before it was submitted.



I need to clarify a potential point of confusion. The velocity variable v has an entirely different meaning in section 4 than it does in section 5. In section 4, where the Doppler effect is determined, v is the relative velocity between the emitting and receiving particles. I say "receiving" rather than "absorbing" because although "absorbing" applies to the case of radiation, the equations hold true for Maxwell's displacement current as well which occurs in situations with no radiation, such as the charging of capacitors.In section 5, v is the velocity of the receiving electron in the inertial frame where the electron was initially at rest before it encountered the incident electric and magnetic fields. The text "and v is the relative velocity between the emitting or disturbing particle particle and that of the particle involved in a measurement" in the sentence "The force on the electronis F = me dv/dt = e (E + v × B) where me and e are the mass and charge of theelectron and v is the relative velocity between the emitting or disturbing particle particle and that of the particle involved in a measurement." needs to be removed as it is not correct. The later sentence "We will assume that the measurement particle is initially at rest." sets the frame of reference to the inertial frame of the electron before it started moving in response to the incident fields. Unfortunately there was not enough time to do a more thorough check of the essay before it was submitted.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT





It is relevant when the velocities of rotations of physical quantum and cosmological spheres is correlated with the harmonic osccillators.The planck constant of course is relevant like always..If now we consider an uniquen quantum state in a pure BEC for example, we can see that the lattices between spheres disappear due to the perfect entanglement where the volumes increase towards the main central sphere, the biggest volume, see that the singularities and their binar correspondance is relevant when we differenciate the bosons and the fermions.Indeed they turn in opposite sense logically.The real ask is binar or fusioned. The volumes so can answer.The vibrations and rotations more the volumes can converge whent he groups are finite and precise.



The frequences and periodicity can be universally linked with the maxwell equations.Even Debye is ok and Stirling also.Now of course Clausius said that all is unified. They turn so they are ...E=m(c³o³s³) don't forget that the fermions encode the bosons ......and that these bosons turn in opposite sense than fermions. The steps of energies can be seen with thje volumes and the stabilities implied !



We can substituate with the kinetic energy and the potential energy correlated with the entropical evolution and its heat. If we consider that it exists a force between all spheres, so we can correlate with the pure newtonian dynamic.So F=Gm1m2/r² , with F=S s1s2/r². It is relevant when the real universal number is found.and its finite and precise serie of uniqueness.The substitutions are very relevant!!!Of course the time is purely irreversible in its pure universal meaning.



Regards



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 06:18 GMT



Thanks for that intriguing post. Do you have a reference or two with more details? Yes, Debye and in particular Brillouin were also masters of certain phases of Wave Mechanics and dispersion. I'm not familiar with Sterling's work. As for modeling fermions and bosons, the expressions for field interactions when the particles are moving or spinning become so much simpler in SU(n) with use of dynamics.



Steve Sycamore



Hello Steve,Thanks for that intriguing post. Do you have a reference or two with more details? Yes, Debye and in particular Brillouin were also masters of certain phases of Wave Mechanics and dispersion. I'm not familiar with Sterling's work. As for modeling fermions and bosons, the expressions for field interactions when the particles are moving or spinning become so much simpler in SU(n) with use of dynamics.Steve Sycamore

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT



Sorry for my late answer, I forgot this thread. I have not published, I just share my Theory of Spherization since more than 8 years everywhere on net on several platforms.I beleive that it is an important discovery and that I must share it to the world simply.Of course I know the human nature but the most important for me is to share it in a total transparence. I have difficulties to resume. I am isolated at home. I like this platform but I beleive that several persons try to profit of my work. It is probably the reason why my pc is hacked. It is not important , it is the human nature.



But let's return at the topic of this thread. Firstly I must say that the name is stirling with a i :).You know, his work is very relevant considering the pure thermodynamics. The proportions appear easily with the rotating 3D spheres. The gravitation is quantized in fact......rotations are proportionals, the volumes are relevant considering the main central sphere. My equation mcosV=constant becomes an universal key for the thermondynamical correlations.The 3D is essential.



Regards



report post as inappropriate Hello Mr Sycamore,Sorry for my late answer, I forgot this thread. I have not published, I just share my Theory of Spherization since more than 8 years everywhere on net on several platforms.I beleive that it is an important discovery and that I must share it to the world simply.Of course I know the human nature but the most important for me is to share it in a total transparence. I have difficulties to resume. I am isolated at home. I like this platform but I beleive that several persons try to profit of my work. It is probably the reason why my pc is hacked. It is not important , it is the human nature.But let's return at the topic of this thread. Firstly I must say that the name is stirling with a i :).You know, his work is very relevant considering the pure thermodynamics. The proportions appear easily with the rotating 3D spheres. The gravitation is quantized in fact......rotations are proportionals, the volumes are relevant considering the main central sphere. My equation mcosV=constant becomes an universal key for the thermondynamical correlations.The 3D is essential.Regards hello to all,It is relevant when the velocities of rotations of physical quantum and cosmological spheres is correlated with the harmonic osccillators.The planck constant of course is relevant like always..If now we consider an uniquen quantum state in a pure BEC for example, we can see that the lattices between spheres disappear due to the perfect entanglement where the volumes increase towards the main central sphere, the biggest volume, see that the singularities and their binar correspondance is relevant when we differenciate the bosons and the fermions.Indeed they turn in opposite sense logically.The real ask is binar or fusioned. The volumes so can answer.The vibrations and rotations more the volumes can converge whent he groups are finite and precise.The frequences and periodicity can be universally linked with the maxwell equations.Even Debye is ok and Stirling also.Now of course Clausius said that all is unified. They turn so they are ...E=m(c³o³s³) don't forget that the fermions encode the bosons ......and that these bosons turn in opposite sense than fermions. The steps of energies can be seen with thje volumes and the stabilities implied !We can substituate with the kinetic energy and the potential energy correlated with the entropical evolution and its heat. If we consider that it exists a force between all spheres, so we can correlate with the pure newtonian dynamic.So F=Gm1m2/r² , with F=S s1s2/r². It is relevant when the real universal number is found.and its finite and precise serie of uniqueness.The substitutions are very relevant!!!Of course the time is purely irreversible in its pure universal meaning.Regards

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT





Incompatiblefigure2.jpg attachments: Incompatiblefigure1.jpg



Attached are 2 image files which show pictorially the essential findings of this study.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:51 GMT





I've received some probing questions and comments about the essay by email from a person who doesn't have the time to participate in this forum but has granted the posting of those remarks here. I'll post them under auspices of the anonymous user.



Hello all,I've received some probing questions and comments about the essay by email from a person who doesn't have the time to participate in this forum but has granted the posting of those remarks here. I'll post them under auspices of the anonymous user.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT





> Note: I'm afraid that many readers don't know that stuff!



> Probably your background is mathematics, and mine isn't, so that I can't comment on those issues...



report post as inappropriate > orthochronous etc: sorry I never heard those words.> Note: I'm afraid that many readers don't know that stuff!> Probably your background is mathematics, and mine isn't, so that I can't comment on those issues...

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT





has this to say



Lorentz transformations which preserve the direction of time are called orthochronous. Those which preserve orientation are called proper, and as linear transformations they have determinant +1.



and this (which parallels what I wrote)



Wikipedia on the Lorentz transformation



Proper Lorentz transformations have det(Au v ) = +1, and form a subgroup called the special orthogonal group SO(1,3).



Improper Lorentz transformations are det(Au v ) = -1, which do not form a subgroup, as the product of any two improper Lorentz transformations will be a proper Lorentz transformation.



From the above definition of A it can be shown that (A0 0 )2 >= 1, so either A0 0 >= 1 or A0 0



That could well be. They are specialized words and concepts that you find in post-graduate, post-doctorate literature when group representations are being discussed. But it's really not as complex or mysterious as it sounds. Wikipedia on the Lorentz group has this to sayLorentz transformations which preserve the direction of time are called orthochronous. Those which preserve orientation are called proper, and as linear transformations they have determinant +1.and this (which parallels what I wrote)Proper Lorentz transformations have det(A) = +1, and form a subgroup called the special orthogonal group SO(1,3).Improper Lorentz transformations are det(A) = -1, which do not form a subgroup, as the product of any two improper Lorentz transformations will be a proper Lorentz transformation.From the above definition of A it can be shown that (A>= 1, so either A>= 1 or A

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT





report post as inappropriate > The "Lorentz group" isn't a pure part of SR. Does the Lorentz transformation have the same problem? If not, then it's an artificial one. Parity is not part of SR.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT





LT -> SR -> Minkowski space -> Lorentz and Poincare groups (from which the subgroups or classifications of the LT are observed) -> generation of Parity rules



I believe it's generally understood in the professional Physics community that the term "spacetime" encompasses the whole ball of wax - everything in the sequence above.



Strictly speaking, what you say is true. Parity relations would seem to be the extension of SR or the application of its definitions and methodologies where those particular difficulties crop up. There are several steps in the entire chain:LT -> SR -> Minkowski space -> Lorentz and Poincare groups (from which the subgroups or classifications of the LT are observed) -> generation of Parity rulesI believe it's generally understood in the professional Physics community that the term "spacetime" encompasses the whole ball of wax - everything in the sequence above.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:36 GMT





>



> - how is it "more general"? It has a different application... no abrogation of the universality of time or distance was invoked!



report post as inappropriate > - The meaning of the symbols of the Voigt transformation is subtly different from that of the Lorentz transformation.> - how is it "more general"? It has a different application... no abrogation of the universality of time or distance was invoked!

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:40 GMT





As Voigt himself pointed out in a postscript addendum to his paper, his transformation can be normalized (not his words but mine) to be equivalent to the LT.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:44 GMT





report post as inappropriate > I did not read that he stated that - if he did, then I think that it was dishonest, or due to confusion, because his theory was very different. It was a successful "me too"!

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:53 GMT





Also what Voigt did that Lorentz did not do was to explicitly consider how the transformation works when the relative velocity is not aligned along the x, y or z axis. Furthermore, he showed the transformation's effect on the wave equation which Lorentz didn't really follow up on and used his transformation for several examples in his paper. His use of symbols is difficult to follow though. That could be the reason that there are very. very few studies of his transformation.



That could be. Of course it was a bit unfair of Lorentz to not cite Voigt's work he as it has been shown he clearly read and considered it.Also what Voigt did that Lorentz did not do was to explicitly consider how the transformation works when the relative velocity is not aligned along the x, y or z axis. Furthermore, he showed the transformation's effect on the wave equation which Lorentz didn't really follow up on and used his transformation for several examples in his paper. His use of symbols is difficult to follow though. That could be the reason that there are very. very few studies of his transformation.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:58 GMT





report post as inappropriate > - It's unclear how to interpret your finding that "we have apparently discovered the origin of the Lorentz gamma factor", referring to the "plasma frequency". It is present all-over wave mechanics.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 04:25 GMT





That is the result I wished to portray in the paper! Because of that we can show that all mathematical relations described in SR or Minkowski space are a homomorphism to the relations described in the paper using 3-vectors in the Newtonian-Galilean framework. If you look at the second image attached in this forum you can see that the homomorphism is







Where the left hand side could be called the Maxwell-Thomson-de Broglie relations in which the effects of charge q and mass m are accounted for in the function f(). The right hand side could be called the Poincare-Einstein-Minkowski relations which employ the Lorentz transformation. The numerical results for a problem expressed in one system are equivalent to the results for the problem expressed in the other system.



J. J. Thomson is the only physicist I know of who has made the direct connection between plasma frequency and wave mechanics. But he didn't actually know of or use the term "plasma frequency" as far as I can see. Normally it seems plasma physicists don't talk to quantum physicists and vice versa. Or they don't mutually understand each other. Which is a shame because this homomorphism could have been discovered long ago.



Historically, de Broglie worked out the mathematics of wave mechanics based on some aspects of SR. But now, we can see that the physical situation is the other way around. SR is a particular interpretation or application of the outworking of wave mechanics.That is the result I wished to portray in the paper! Because of that we can show that all mathematical relations described in SR or Minkowski space are a homomorphism to the relations described in the paper using 3-vectors in the Newtonian-Galilean framework. If you look at the second image attached in this forum you can see that the homomorphism isWhere the left hand side could be called the Maxwell-Thomson-de Broglie relations in which the effects of charge q and mass m are accounted for in the function f(). The right hand side could be called the Poincare-Einstein-Minkowski relations which employ the Lorentz transformation. The numerical results for a problem expressed in one system are equivalent to the results for the problem expressed in the other system.J. J. Thomson is the only physicist I know of who has made the direct connection between plasma frequency and wave mechanics. But he didn't actually know of or use the term "plasma frequency" as far as I can see. Normally it seems plasma physicists don't talk to quantum physicists and vice versa. Or they don't mutually understand each other. Which is a shame because this homomorphism could have been discovered long ago.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 04:32 GMT









Sorry, the equation above has a misplaced equal sign and arrow. It should be

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT





Related websites are



Superluminal from Wolfram Research



The Fast-Light Debate



There may be a way to experimentally verify what is shown here theoretically. The leading edge of a wave traveling at c with respect to an emitting particle should have telltale precursor signals: the Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors. See Arnold Sommerfeld "Optics" and Leon Brillouin "Wave Propagation and Group Velocity".Related websites are

Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 05:49 GMT





I have read your interesting paper. I did not understand every technical detail, but the main message I hopefully got, that is, the Lorentz Invariance in its relativistic version is too restrictive if applied to space and time.



I discovered a space-time-picture that is less restrictive, but its inner design follows nevertheless a specific type of Lorentz invariance,...



view entire post Dear Stephen,I have read your interesting paper. I did not understand every technical detail, but the main message I hopefully got, that is, the Lorentz Invariance in its relativistic version is too restrictive if applied to space and time.I discovered a space-time-picture that is less restrictive, but its inner design follows nevertheless a specific type of Lorentz invariance,...



I have read your interesting paper. I did not understand every technical detail, but the main message I hopefully got, that is, the Lorentz Invariance in its relativistic version is too restrictive if applied to space and time.



I discovered a space-time-picture that is less restrictive, but its inner design follows nevertheless a specific type of Lorentz invariance, that is slightly different from the relativistic version. The underlying space-time-picture is geometrically composed of a SQUARE and a CIRCLE, both blueprints are closely entangled to each other.



This somehow archetypal space-time-picture implies some interesting features. One of the most important features is the existence of two faces of c; a feature, what I am calling the DUAL PARAMETRIZATION of C. It means, there is a particle-like face of the constancy of light - and there is a wave-like face, too. As both faces are formally parametrized in the same way, i.e. c = 1, it is almost impossible to recognize the particle-like face of c. It is still hidden.



The relativistic kinematics is actually insensitive with respect to this Dual Parametrization of c. It is not only compatible with the wave-like version of the constancy of light as it is stated in the second postulate of SRT, but it is also compatible with a particle-like version of the constancy of light c.



In his 1905b-paper Einstein has noted that the velocity of light V cannot be altered by composition with any subluminal velocity but he did not see its full meaning with respect to the speed of light. John Stachel was wondering about this. He asked himself: Why did Einstein not note this possibility though it must have been equally obvious to him.



Reference: Stachel, John. Einsteins Light-Quantum Hypothesis, or Why Did not Einstein Propose a Quantum Gas a Decade-and-a-Half Earlier? (Einstein. The formative Years, Einstein Studies 2000, p. 240)



This kinematical notion - if connected with a particle model of light - implies a far-reaching experimental consequence : Even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitting source, the speed of light would always be measured as c = 1.



Consequently, all experimental tests concerning the second postulate of SRT are not unambiguous. There is - at least in principle - the possibility that something different has been measured - a sort of a particle-like version of the constancy of light.



May be you find this view interesting..



Good Luck for your Essay.



Kind Regards



Helmut



view post as summary Dear Stephen,I have read your interesting paper. I did not understand every technical detail, but the main message I hopefully got, that is, the Lorentz Invariance in its relativistic version is too restrictive if applied to space and time.I discovered a space-time-picture that is less restrictive, but its inner design follows nevertheless a specific type of Lorentz invariance, that is slightly different from the relativistic version. The underlying space-time-picture is geometrically composed of a SQUARE and a CIRCLE, both blueprints are closely entangled to each other.This somehow archetypal space-time-picture implies some interesting features. One of the most important features is the existence of two faces of c; a feature, what I am calling the DUAL PARAMETRIZATION of C. It means, there is a particle-like face of the constancy of light - and there is a wave-like face, too. As both faces are formally parametrized in the same way, i.e. c = 1, it is almost impossible to recognize the particle-like face of c. It is still hidden.The relativistic kinematics is actually insensitive with respect to this Dual Parametrization of c. It is not only compatible with the wave-like version of the constancy of light as it is stated in the second postulate of SRT, but it is also compatible with a particle-like version of the constancy of light c.In his 1905b-paper Einstein has noted that the velocity of light V cannot be altered by composition with any subluminal velocity but he did not see its full meaning with respect to the speed of light. John Stachel was wondering about this. He asked himself: Why did Einstein not note this possibility though it must have been equally obvious to him.Reference: Stachel, John. Einsteins Light-Quantum Hypothesis, or Why Did not Einstein Propose a Quantum Gas a Decade-and-a-Half Earlier? (Einstein. The formative Years, Einstein Studies 2000, p. 240)This kinematical notion - if connected with a particle model of light - implies a far-reaching experimental consequence : Even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitting source, the speed of light would always be measured as c = 1.Consequently, all experimental tests concerning the second postulate of SRT are not unambiguous. There is - at least in principle - the possibility that something different has been measured - a sort of a particle-like version of the constancy of light.May be you find this view interesting..Good Luck for your Essay.Kind RegardsHelmut



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT



Thank you for your comments and consideration of the paper. I'll certainly read and ponder your essay. I'll likely post questions or comments in the forum area you have, but I might not be totally familiar with the concepts and literature that your essay is based on either.



Best of luck in the contest to you also,



Steve



Hello Helmut,Thank you for your comments and consideration of the paper. I'll certainly read and ponder your essay. I'll likely post questions or comments in the forum area you have, but I might not be totally familiar with the concepts and literature that your essay is based on either.Best of luck in the contest to you also,Steve

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:52 GMT





Very interesting to see your essay.



Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.



So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.



Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...



view entire post DearVery interesting to see your essay.Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...



Very interesting to see your essay.



Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.



So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.



Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.



Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:



You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.



Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?



The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?



Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?



You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.



Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?



Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.



Regards !



Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY



August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.



view post as summary DearVery interesting to see your essay.Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.Regards !Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORYAugust 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 07:51 GMT



One must admire the apparent enthusiasm behind your paper and the presentation of the generic message on all of the forums here. But some attention to detail (such as addressing each author personally) might go a long way in personal relationships even as it does in physics.



Best wishes,



Steve



Dear hoang cao hai,One must admire the apparent enthusiasm behind your paper and the presentation of the generic message on all of the forums here. But some attention to detail (such as addressing each author personally) might go a long way in personal relationships even as it does in physics.Best wishes,Steve

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 08:52 GMT





In Special Relativity, light travels at c with respect to both the emitter and receiver. (Space and time require redefinition if the mathematics is to work out). However in a single Newtonian-Galilean coordinate system containing both emitter and receiver, if we were to suppose that light is emitted at c with respect to the emitter then the velocity of the electromagnetic wave must be c + v where v is the relative velocity between the particles. The receiving particle would encounter radiation moving at that speed. However the effect of dispersion shifts the wavelength and frequency after the encounter with the receiving particle in such a manner that the frequency and wavelength are equivalent of what is calculated within Special Relativity.



The dispersion process has a bit of time lag due to the mass of the receiving particle. A very tiny bit of the unshifted EM wave slips through unmodified. In other words, the receiving particle only starts to move in reaction to new field fluctuations as the wavefront passes by the particle. The motion of the receiving particle starts to produce new field fluctuations that add to the impinging radiation from the original radiating particle but a small amount of the original wave has already raced out ahead of mixed wave.



Sommerfeld and Brillouin called that very short signal a precursor or forerunner. The problem with detecting such a signal is that any particle with the same mass as the receiving particle that is interacting with the unmodified wave from a vacuum will not be able to register any measurement effects. A measurement of precursors would seem to require a measurement of the movement of particles with less mass where they lie behind the particle which generates the primary dispersive effects.



Steve





Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 06:36 GMT



Do you support Peter Jackson's reaction to the file forerunner?



Curious,



Eckard



attachments: 2_forerunner.doc



report post as inappropriate Dear Steve,Do you support Peter Jackson's reaction to the file forerunner?Curious,Eckard

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT



Rather than respond to Peter's response I'd rather, first of all, formulate a direct response to your notes. I believe you are well justified in questioning whether EM fluctuations always proceed at c from an emitting body. Since we have no means to directly measure that (without involving a test particle) that velocity must be inferred. From a theoretical standpoint, quantum theory does not furnish the tools to model the emission process as far as I know. One reason for that is that very much of quantum theory is built from relativistic or non-relativistic kinematics by-passing dynamical formulations leaving only before-emission and after-emission states.



It would seem natural that the emission process is quite similar to the absorption process except that the sequence of events and propagation of waves is reversed. In both cases the process involves a photon unless the wave fluctuations are non-photonic, that is, involve only an exchange of displacement current. (I'll assume we want to avoid a description involving virtual photons). Such non-photonic experiments could conceivably be carried out by charging moving capacitors. So the resolution of your concern would probably require the consideration of a number of different experiments plus a consistent and rigorous formulation of emission theory. I'd have to see Professor Omar's analysis before commenting on that.



It may also be the case that a proper EM model that demonstrates the Sagnac effect can illuminate the situation. As I've said a number of times, I believe a rigorous mathematical model for rotating objects must be done using SU(2) algebra. Doing so should relate the absolute qualities of rotation to the relative qualities of linear wave propagation, providing an anchor in time and space for the relative velocities.



So yes, any assumption of emission at c is preliminary and requires more investigation.



Steve



Dear Eckard,Rather than respond to Peter's response I'd rather, first of all, formulate a direct response to your notes. I believe you are well justified in questioning whether EM fluctuations always proceed at c from an emitting body. Since we have no means to directly measure that (without involving a test particle) that velocity must be inferred. From a theoretical standpoint, quantum theory does not furnish the tools to model the emission process as far as I know. One reason for that is that very much of quantum theory is built from relativistic or non-relativistic kinematics by-passing dynamical formulations leaving only before-emission and after-emission states.It would seem natural that the emission process is quite similar to the absorption process except that the sequence of events and propagation of waves is reversed. In both cases the process involves a photon unless the wave fluctuations are non-photonic, that is, involve only an exchange of displacement current. (I'll assume we want to avoid a description involving virtual photons). Such non-photonic experiments could conceivably be carried out by charging moving capacitors. So the resolution of your concern would probably require the consideration of a number of different experiments plus a consistent and rigorous formulation of emission theory. I'd have to see Professor Omar's analysis before commenting on that.It may also be the case that a proper EM model that demonstrates the Sagnac effect can illuminate the situation. As I've said a number of times, I believe a rigorous mathematical model for rotating objects must be done using SU(2) algebra. Doing so should relate the absolute qualities of rotation to the relative qualities of linear wave propagation, providing an anchor in time and space for the relative velocities.So yes, any assumption of emission at c is preliminary and requires more investigation.Steve I was asked by a reviewer from outside this forum for a clarification of how the theory could be verified.In Special Relativity, light travels at c with respect to both the emitter and receiver. (Space and time require redefinition if the mathematics is to work out). However in a single Newtonian-Galilean coordinate system containing both emitter and receiver, if we were to suppose that light is emitted at c with respect to the emitter then the velocity of the electromagnetic wave must be c + v where v is the relative velocity between the particles. The receiving particle would encounter radiation moving at that speed. However the effect of dispersion shifts the wavelength and frequency after the encounter with the receiving particle in such a manner that the frequency and wavelength are equivalent of what is calculated within Special Relativity.The dispersion process has a bit of time lag due to the mass of the receiving particle. A very tiny bit of the unshifted EM wave slips through unmodified. In other words, the receiving particle only starts to move in reaction to new field fluctuations as the wavefront passes by the particle. The motion of the receiving particle starts to produce new field fluctuations that add to the impinging radiation from the original radiating particle but a small amount of the original wave has already raced out ahead of mixed wave.Sommerfeld and Brillouin called that very short signal a precursor or forerunner. The problem with detecting such a signal is that any particle with the same mass as the receiving particle that is interacting with the unmodified wave from a vacuum will not be able to register any measurement effects. A measurement of precursors would seem to require a measurement of the movement of particles with less mass where they lie behind the particle which generates the primary dispersive effects.Steve

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT





I agree a transform of Maxwell between frames as a Holy Grail. Your essay was wonderful to read and gave a better basis for my own findings, which I noticed Peter Jackson referred to above. My 'Cluster probes' shock crossing analysis merely agrees with his proposals, I hope you've studied the implications. Maxwells transition zone is identified by Peter as the nanoscale photoionized 'surface charge electrons' version of my Fig 2. I feel a whole new simpler unified and more consistent paradigm emerging, but it seems many haven't really noticed it. Or are they fearful?



Do please read and comment on mine, particularly the shock crossing analysis and spiral soiliton wave particle models shown in the fig's.



Regards



Rich



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT



Thank you for your consideration. As I've posted in the forum for your essay, I also find your essay interesting and need to look further into the issues you bring up. I hope others will seriously consider what is brought up there.



Cheers,



Steve



Hello Richard,Thank you for your consideration. As I've posted in the forum for your essay, I also find your essay interesting and need to look further into the issues you bring up. I hope others will seriously consider what is brought up there.Cheers,Steve StevenI agree a transform of Maxwell between frames as a Holy Grail. Your essay was wonderful to read and gave a better basis for my own findings, which I noticed Peter Jackson referred to above. My 'Cluster probes' shock crossing analysis merely agrees with his proposals, I hope you've studied the implications. Maxwells transition zone is identified by Peter as the nanoscale photoionized 'surface charge electrons' version of my Fig 2. I feel a whole new simpler unified and more consistent paradigm emerging, but it seems many haven't really noticed it. Or are they fearful?Do please read and comment on mine, particularly the shock crossing analysis and spiral soiliton wave particle models shown in the fig's.RegardsRich

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 06:42 GMT





The copyright has expired under UK and US copyright laws. I've done a quality optical scan of the book and have created a PDF file to easily view the contents.



Please send email if you would like a copy to: overgrip@hotmail.com



The book presents Thomson's findings in a very accessible way with many analogies expressed in a way that should be easy for a layman to understand.



Steve



I'd like to mention that one very important item in the bibliography for this essay is out of print and possibly difficult to obtain. That is Sir J. J. Thomson's monograph "Beyond the Electron".The copyright has expired under UK and US copyright laws. I've done a quality optical scan of the book and have created a PDF file to easily view the contents.Please send email if you would like a copy to: overgrip@hotmail.comThe book presents Thomson's findings in a very accessible way with many analogies expressed in a way that should be easy for a layman to understand.Steve

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:17 GMT





Vladimir



report post as inappropriate Thank you Stephen for a sensible approach - linking velocity to energy in interpreting Maxwell's equations may be much closer to the physical situation in nature, than the artificial and abstract postulate of c= constant in Special Relativity. I wish you success.Vladimir

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT





The value c is the only obvious velocity parameter embedded in the



Maxwell equations. It is derived from the combination of the vacuum permittivity



0 and vacuum permeability constants μ0, the former being effectively a conductance



facilitating parameter while the later is a resistance to the passage of energy through.....



Slightly different considerations apply to the so-called permittivity of free space, which historically has been regarded as a separate physical constant in some systems of measurement but not in others.



Title: On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann universes



Authors: Sumner, W. Q.



Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 429, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 491-498



report post as inappropriate Stephen wrote:The value c is the only obvious velocity parameter embedded in theMaxwell equations. It is derived from the combination of the vacuum permittivity0 and vacuum permeability constants μ0, the former being effectively a conductancefacilitating parameter while the later is a resistance to the passage of energy through.....Slightly different considerations apply to the so-called permittivity of free space, which historically has been regarded as a separate physical constant in some systems of measurement but not in others.Title: On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann universesAuthors: Sumner, W. Q.Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 429, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 491-498

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT





With best wishes,



Steve





Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT



report post as inappropriate Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT



I've rated the essay and commented on it in your forum. I'll no doubt return to read it again some time later.



Best of luck,



Steve



Hi Yuri,I've rated the essay and commented on it in your forum. I'll no doubt return to read it again some time later.Best of luck,Steve

Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT



I rated your essay maximum.



report post as inappropriate Thank you Steve.I rated your essay maximum. Thank you for the reference to that interesting sounding paper Yuri. I hope to be able to read your essay also soon. There are so many papers here to read and consider!With best wishes,Steve

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT





You present an interesting, clearly written, and, I believe, timely paper. I believe that the whole issue of group symmetry in physics ought to be revisited very carefully and without prejudice. This is not to suggest that group symmetry is not an important concept in physics; to argue this would be rather absurd given the (partial) successes of relativity and the standard model. However, you point out one of several different very important instances in which group symmetry either does not completely account for the physical phenomena to which it is applied, or accounts for them in a less than natural manner.



Like you, I doubt the Lorentz group symmetry interpretation of covariance. Although my reasons and my approach are somewhat different, I admire the courage to question such a sacred pillar of modern physics. It is popular in modern physics to view group symmetry as the best (perhaps only!) way of expressing simplifying or unifying ideas, and this is very far from being true.



Thanks for the great read! Take care,



Ben Dribus



report post as inappropriate Dear Stephen,You present an interesting, clearly written, and, I believe, timely paper. I believe that the whole issue of group symmetry in physics ought to be revisited very carefully and without prejudice. This is not to suggest that group symmetry is not an important concept in physics; to argue this would be rather absurd given the (partial) successes of relativity and the standard model. However, you point out one of several different very important instances in which group symmetry either does not completely account for the physical phenomena to which it is applied, or accounts for them in a less than natural manner.Like you, I doubt the Lorentz group symmetry interpretation of covariance. Although my reasons and my approach are somewhat different, I admire the courage to question such a sacred pillar of modern physics. It is popular in modern physics to view group symmetry as the best (perhaps only!) way of expressing simplifying or unifying ideas, and this is very far from being true.Thanks for the great read! Take care,Ben Dribus

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT





Best,



Steve



Thanks for the consideration and comments Ben. As I indicated in the forum for your essay, I think it will be very interesting to see the results of your work unfold.Best,Steve

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:55 GMT





Sergey Fedosin



report post as inappropriate If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating isandwas the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you haveof points. After it anyone give youof points so you haveof points andis the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will haveof points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:ororIn other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more pointsthen the participant`s ratingwas at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:17 GMT





The dielectric tensors used to determine values in the constitutive relations are, in a rough sense, microscopic homomorphisms of the tensors used in Minkowski's electrodynamics for macroscopic calculations. Obviously getting things right in the microscopic domain has large advantages to only getting something that sort of works in the macroscopic domain. This may explain why space-time no longer appears uniform or continuous at the microscopic or quantum level.



report post as inappropriate I'd like to re-state a couple of additional observations that follow from the essay here that were made in forums for other essays. This essay focuses on developing the mathematics at the fundamental level, i.e., the microscopic level of elementary particles. But as you step up a level or two to the macroscopic realm you may determine the permittivity and permeability on the basis of the volume density of each particle species. From there you can fairly easily determine the effective propagation speed of EM waves.The dielectric tensors used to determine values in the constitutive relations are, in a rough sense, microscopic homomorphisms of the tensors used in Minkowski's electrodynamics for macroscopic calculations. Obviously getting things right in the microscopic domain has large advantages to only getting something that sort of works in the macroscopic domain. This may explain why space-time no longer appears uniform or continuous at the microscopic or quantum level.

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:31 GMT





To highlight that problem, if we define the concept of simultaneous events based solely per observer, then we lose the information that all observers possess together. What all observers see simultaneously has at least as much value as what only one observer sees, doesn't it? It is true that all observers cannot immediately verify that they did see an event simultaneously, but after exchanging the appropriate information they may verify that they did in fact do so.



Louis De Broglie in "Non-linear Wave Mechanics" expressed a mostly intuitive distrust of transformations. I think that distrust is due to a subconscious acknowledgement of the potential loss or lack of information entailed in their use.



Steve



The other re-statement of an observation from another forum has to do with a particular difficulty of the application of space-time and especially the use of transformations. There would seem to be a loss of information when we split the universe (all known facts that apply) into separate disconnected domains, i.e., frames of reference.To highlight that problem, if we define the concept of simultaneous events based solely per observer, then we lose the information that all observers possess together. What all observers see simultaneously has at least as much value as what only one observer sees, doesn't it? It is true that all observers cannot immediately verify that they did see an event simultaneously, but after exchanging the appropriate information they may verify that they did in fact do so.Louis De Broglie in "Non-linear Wave Mechanics" expressed a mostly intuitive distrust of transformations. I think that distrust is due to a subconscious acknowledgement of the potential loss or lack of information entailed in their use.Steve

Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:47 GMT





Brilliant enlightened view from a mathematician.



Matt



report post as inappropriate StephenBrilliant enlightened view from a mathematician.Matt

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:07 GMT





Eckard has called on your expertise. I agree you should be able to assist. I copy my most recent post here;



"Eckard



I responded to your post on my blog with more links (as you felt one was inadequate) and don't have Google. (I refer to your post about my wishful thinking and lack of knowledge).



You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."



The exact reverse is true. You had understood that a few weeks ago but seem now to have forgotten again. I can find no cause for this except that again you didn't follow my advice for gaining better comprehension. I've suggested we all need to dig deeper to find and remove those assumptions which we otherwise revert back to as a 'default mode' the moment we loose concentration.



In fact this is as true for sound, your familiar subject, as it is for light. The signal from the ear to the brain has a 'wavelength', which varies subject to the motion of the body. I suggest a calculation will show this also differs from the wavelength in the 'outside' medium. It would take a completely fresh view of the familiar to see the important consequences of this; The frequency is inversely proportional to lambda, as speed is controlled by the local medium. It is precisely the same for em waves.



I think my full reply on my string should straighten this out. You say you defer to Steve Sycamore's expert view. I also respect Steve's view and believe he'll unequivocally confirm the above. I'll flag this conversation up for Steve to comment."



Thanks, and Best wishes



Peter



report post as inappropriate StevenEckard has called on your expertise. I agree you should be able to assist. I copy my most recent post here;"EckardI responded to your post on my blog with more links (as you felt one was inadequate) and don't have Google. (I refer to your post about my wishful thinking and lack of knowledge).You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."The exact reverse is true. You had understood that a few weeks ago but seem now to have forgotten again. I can find no cause for this except that again you didn't follow my advice for gaining better comprehension. I've suggested we all need to dig deeper to find and remove those assumptions which we otherwise revert back to as a 'default mode' the moment we loose concentration.In fact this is as true for sound, your familiar subject, as it is for light. The signal from the ear to the brain has a 'wavelength', which varies subject to the motion of the body. I suggest a calculation will show this also differs from the wavelength in the 'outside' medium. It would take a completely fresh view of the familiar to see the important consequences of this; The frequency is inversely proportional to lambda, as speed is controlled by the local medium. It is precisely the same for em waves.I think my full reply on my string should straighten this out. You say you defer to Steve Sycamore's expert view. I also respect Steve's view and believe he'll unequivocally confirm the above. I'll flag this conversation up for Steve to comment."Thanks, and Best wishesPeter

Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT





Re our exchange in Ben’s blog.



While I would never understand some of the maths, I do not want to comment too much on the underlying logic (spacetime, c, etc) because I might just be pre-empting conclusions which I have in my head but want to confirm by finishing that paper (the first half of which was a response on Ben’s blog).



Though the history is irrelevant, my...



view entire post SteveRe our exchange in Ben’s blog.While I would never understand some of the maths, I do not want to comment too much on the underlying logic (spacetime, c, etc) because I might just be pre-empting conclusions which I have in my head but want to confirm by finishing that paper (the first half of which was a response on Ben’s blog).Though the history is irrelevant, my...



Re our exchange in Ben’s blog.



While I would never understand some of the maths, I do not want to comment too much on the underlying logic (spacetime, c, etc) because I might just be pre-empting conclusions which I have in my head but want to confirm by finishing that paper (the first half of which was a response on Ben’s blog).



Though the history is irrelevant, my simple understanding is that Voigt and Doppler were using the concept of local time. Understandably though, because they were trying to represent effects which occurred over time. Lorentz uses local time later, with Poincaré in the background with his misconception of time and timing. In very crude terms: it was rather like ‘pin the tail on the donkey’. Through all the deliberations over ether, ether movement, light, light speed and direction, earth movement, etc, there was deemed to be variance, and time finally provided a suitable candidate. The problem is that this is just associated with observation. Hence the appearance of c in so many equations. Which raises the rather obvious question as to what has the speed of an effect in photons got to do with it?? It could be that a differential in gravitational force applied, ie a force, because only differences have the effect, could cause dimensional alteration, as well as momentum change. This was their original position, it was never rescinded, and could be correct.



SR is a red herring



γ is really a generic expression for the relationship between a rate of change as is with that rate as is when referred to another reference which is altering. Forget c. It could be any v. Again, c is just a reflection of the fact that the entire model of physical reality has been built with c as the determinant. Light just enables sight!!



Neither is physical reality only three dimensional spatially, this just represents the minimum number conceptually possible. From any given spatial position, the smallest elementary particle could move (ie alter spatial position) by next occupying any other adjacent spatial point, of which there will be a definite number determined by the size (spatial footprint) of that elementary particle. So, the number of possible physical dimensions is half that number of those possible directions, as the concept of dimension relates to a direction, either way.



Physical existence (as it can only be known to us) is an n spatially dimensional state of the substance which comprises it, which exists in one definitive physically existent state at a time. The rate of change, obviously, being determined by the fastest form of change in physical existence. That does not imply that everything has changed in that duration, but if something has, then there is a different physically existent state. This is the tick rate of physical existence.



The big question here is, what can we assume to be the relationship between a unit of spatial relationship and a unit of change.



Paul



view post as summary SteveRe our exchange in Ben’s blog.While I would never understand some of the maths, I do not want to comment too much on the underlying logic (spacetime, c, etc) because I might just be pre-empting conclusions which I have in my head but want to confirm by finishing that paper (the first half of which was a response on Ben’s blog).Though the history is irrelevant, my simple understanding is that Voigt and Doppler were using the concept of local time. Understandably though, because they were trying to represent effects which occurred over time. Lorentz uses local time later, with Poincaré in the background with his misconception of time and timing. In very crude terms: it was rather like ‘pin the tail on the donkey’. Through all the deliberations over ether, ether movement, light, light speed and direction, earth movement, etc, there was deemed to be variance, and time finally provided a suitable candidate. The problem is that this is just associated with observation. Hence the appearance of c in so many equations. Which raises the rather obvious question as to what has the speed of an effect in photons got to do with it?? It could be that a differential in gravitational force applied, ie a force, because only differences have the effect, could cause dimensional alteration, as well as momentum change. This was their original position, it was never rescinded, and could be correct.SR is a red herringγ is really a generic expression for the relationship between a rate of change as is with that rate as is when referred to another reference which is altering. Forget c. It could be any v. Again, c is just a reflection of the fact that the entire model of physical reality has been built with c as the determinant. Light just enables sight!!Neither is physical reality only three dimensional spatially, this just represents the minimum number conceptually possible. From any given spatial position, the smallest elementary particle could move (ie alter spatial position) by next occupying any other adjacent spatial point, of which there will be a definite number determined by the size (spatial footprint) of that elementary particle. So, the number of possible physical dimensions is half that number of those possible directions, as the concept of dimension relates to a direction, either way.Physical existence (as it can only be known to us) is an n spatially dimensional state of the substance which comprises it, which exists in one definitive physically existent state at a time. The rate of change, obviously, being determined by the fastest form of change in physical existence. That does not imply that everything has changed in that duration, but if something has, then there is a different physically existent state. This is the tick rate of physical existence.The big question here is, what can we assume to be the relationship between a unit of spatial relationship and a unit of change.Paul



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT





Thanks for your comments. To really understand and appreciate what you seem to want to express I think I'd need to see your thoughts a bit more more distilled and focused towards something more concrete. In other words, where do you think your perceptions will take you? Can you build a mathematical procedure or model on some feature or a logical framework in order to construct new models? Are there other things to consider before you come to that point?



My own investigation seems to show that classical physical and mathematical concepts and procedures are quite adequate to arrive at a full understanding of how the experimental effects associated with Lorentz invariance and Special Relativity arise.



With best wishes,



Steve





Paul Reed replied on Nov. 1, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT



I could never build a model, I will leave that to others. In fact, as I have just said (again) in Ben’s blog, I doubt if we could ever get down to the existential level, ie what is actually happening. But we can establish some rules that must not be contravened in modelling (and I have posted these before), even if it has to be at a ‘simplified’ level.



Believe me, I am frustrated at not getting to at least some more ‘conclusions’. I am currently motivated, having been bored with it all. But last night I managed to faint in the theatre, which is highly embarrassing, and my knee really hurts. The current paper, of which I posted half, to respond to Ben’s point about time, is a rewrite of two others. So I have an idea as to ‘where it is going’. Suffice it to say for now, that I think the current view of what constitutes our physical reality is a sub-set where c (as in speed and light) is the design determinant. Apart from getting the very basic wrong, ie it is spatially existent state altering over time. One state at a time. A state is only in one form. It’s a What the Butler Saw machine, at an incredibly high speed!!



Paul



report post as inappropriate SteveI could never build a model, I will leave that to others. In fact, as I have just said (again) in Ben’s blog, I doubt if we could ever get down to the existential level, ie what is actually happening. But we can establish some rules that must not be contravened in modelling (and I have posted these before), even if it has to be at a ‘simplified’ level.Believe me, I am frustrated at not getting to at least some more ‘conclusions’. I am currently motivated, having been bored with it all. But last night I managed to faint in the theatre, which is highly embarrassing, and my knee really hurts. The current paper, of which I posted half, to respond to Ben’s point about time, is a rewrite of two others. So I have an idea as to ‘where it is going’. Suffice it to say for now, that I think the current view of what constitutes our physical reality is a sub-set where c (as in speed and light) is the design determinant. Apart from getting the very basic wrong, ie it is spatially existent state altering over time. One state at a time. A state is only in one form. It’s a What the Butler Saw machine, at an incredibly high speed!!Paul

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT



In responding to your comment about the relativity of simultaneity invoked by Einstein seemed to be a feature of the real world, and preclude a ‘naïve’ notion of an external time parameter, I posted a detailed response which replied to that, but was the front end of a re-write. I did rather assume that, although one would get to the same basic conclusion, that the rest of the argument, as currently expounded, was at least internally valid. But the impact of failing to understand the expression t =x/v, and the conflation of existence with observation of existence is more far reaching than I thought. So watch this space.



Paul



report post as inappropriate Ben (Steve)In responding to your comment about the relativity of simultaneity invoked by Einstein seemed to be a feature of the real world, and preclude a ‘naïve’ notion of an external time parameter, I posted a detailed response which replied to that, but was the front end of a re-write. I did rather assume that, although one would get to the same basic conclusion, that the rest of the argument, as currently expounded, was at least internally valid. But the impact of failing to understand the expression t =x/v, and the conflation of existence with observation of existence is more far reaching than I thought. So watch this space.Paul Hello Paul,Thanks for your comments. To really understand and appreciate what you seem to want to express I think I'd need to see your thoughts a bit more more distilled and focused towards something more concrete. In other words, where do you think your perceptions will take you? Can you build a mathematical procedure or model on some feature or a logical framework in order to construct new models? Are there other things to consider before you come to that point?My own investigation seems to show that classical physical and mathematical concepts and procedures are quite adequate to arrive at a full understanding of how the experimental effects associated with Lorentz invariance and Special Relativity arise.With best wishes,Steve

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 17:28 GMT





Kinematics of



Variability of charge force by an eigen-rotational string-segment depends on its angular velocity and string-length, in that the proper time is cyclic as observational with the moving clock at the peripheral end of that eigen-rotational string-segment.



Geometry of motion of eigen-rotational string-segments described in this paradigm, expresses three dimensional tetrahedral-brane structures from two dimensional membrane fields and thus the field symmetry is preserved only on completion of an eigen-rotational cycle of the string-segment and not within a cycle of rotation of that string-segment.



Thus the energy transfer by the wave dynamics in this paradigm is described as the disjunction of a string-segment or its sub-segment from the source string and conjunction of it with the target string.



With best wishes



Jayakar



report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen M Sycamore replied on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 11:28 GMT



Thanks for the reference you gave and the brief explanation. I'll read the essay as soon as I can break free of a few demanding tasks. Most likely I'll post some comments or questions in the forum for the paper.



Steve



Dear Jayakar,Thanks for the reference you gave and the brief explanation. I'll read the essay as soon as I can break free of a few demanding tasks. Most likely I'll post some comments or questions in the forum for the paper.Steve Dear Stephen Sycamore,Kinematics of Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs from that in Standard model of cosmology as the kinematics of point like structures are not expressional in this paradigm. This implies that the Lorentz force applied with Maxwell's equations needs modified definition for charge force, as it is variable rather than invariable point charge force when expressional with eigen-rotations of string-segments, in that partial differential equation is applicable.Variability of charge force by an eigen-rotational string-segment depends on its angular velocity and string-length, in that the proper time is cyclic as observational with the moving clock at the peripheral end of that eigen-rotational string-segment.Geometry of motion of eigen-rotational string-segments described in this paradigm, expresses three dimensional tetrahedral-brane structures from two dimensional membrane fields and thus the field symmetry is preserved only on completion of an eigen-rotational cycle of the string-segment and not within a cycle of rotation of that string-segment.Thus the energy transfer by the wave dynamics in this paradigm is described as the disjunction of a string-segment or its sub-segment from the source string and conjunction of it with the target string.With best wishesJayakar

Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 05:35 GMT