elas Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Norman Albers I think there is an alternative way of explaining 'spacetime' and would like you to consider the following: there is a "spacetime fabric" There is a historical record in the form of light that travels outward from each point of light generation; the observer sees this as an unstoppable film; only the frame present when the time is ‘now’ is observable. The speed at which each frame travels is determined by the density of matter (gravitons). The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. Because each observer is in a local gravity field, each observer sees light arriving at the same constant speed regardless of the direction from which the light is coming or the relative velocities of observer and the point of origin of the light. (Because the photons are being passed from graviton to graviton at the local rate). The entire fabric of mass and radiation behaves as per this fabric we are discussing Wrong way around; mass determines the structure of the ‘spacetime’ frame. The term ‘spacetime’ is simply part of a professional language; it is the mathematics of the movement of light in a partial vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 So, let me try to paraphrase. Please validate the accuracy of my reprsentation of your words. Time does, indeed, have a definition, but the common definition is not a part of our actual reality or existence? Sounds a bit internally inconsistent, if that is, indeed, what you mean. Curious. What is inconsistent is trying to do physics in different reference frames. General relativity starts with the statement that physics is the same everywhere locally experienced. We will see the clock near a great mass going slower by our clock; it "truly" is, as are all definable physical processes and oscillations. Gravitation is the stretching and compression of the vacuum fields. Elas, why do you say "partial vacuum"? These days I am seeing the vacuum field as the substrate which manifests radiation and massive "particles". Mass is local structure. As with Maxwell's equations, this is a circle so don't get caught in causality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 Norman Albers Elas, why do you say "partial vacuum"? These days I am seeing the vacuum field as the substrate which manifests radiation and massive "particles". Mass is local structure. But within the substrate, absolute vacuum exists only in the form of Vacuum Zero Points; all manifestations are partial vacuum fields (i.e. vacuum/anti-vacuum fields). Since my last reply swansont has pointed out that I am breaking the rules when referring to my work on other forums. This means that I am limited to saying that the (classical) mathematics of such fields can be derived from the work of Mac Gregor. Have just found: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284 Try replacing magnetic force with vacuum force. That is what I did, many years ago, with the introduction to one of Puthoff's papers to get my starting point. Use Mac Gregor's Enigmatic Electron (Fig. 1:1) to see the relationship between vacuum force and all other forces. PS: What I am really trying to say is that all forces are manifestations of the Vacuum Force The base (VZP) frame is unchanging and therefore timeless - it is always Now. The manifestations are subject to change and time, as we know it; is a method of measuring those changes but, even here; the only real time is Now. The difference being that in the base frame Now is everlasting; in the manifestations frame Now is to short to give it a mathematical value. This fleeting moment is the everlasting moment of reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What is inconsistent is trying to do physics in different reference frames. General relativity starts with the statement that physics is the same everywhere locally experienced. We will see the clock near a great mass going slower by our clock; it "truly" is, as are all definable physical processes and oscillations. Gravitation is the stretching and compression of the vacuum fields. Elas, why do you say "partial vacuum"? These days I am seeing the vacuum field as the substrate which manifests radiation and massive "particles". Mass is local structure. As with Maxwell's equations, this is a circle so don't get caught in causality. "vacuum fields"??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 QM gives us zero-point fluctuation fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 QM gives us zero-point fluctuation fields. You are referring to spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 If you want to talk about the Casimir force go ahead and do that in the relevant physics forum. This thread is so elas can expand on his statement, which seems to be completely off-topic for the "time" thread it was posted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Deleted...afk, and missed the responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I will try to add a few coherent thoughts on the zero-point vacuum fields. I do not know well the matter field constructions, though I am reading on the Dirac field for electrons/positrons. Frustratingly little is said on p.416 of Cohen-Tannoudji's Photons and Atoms, Intro. to QED: electrons and positrons have possible states of |0>, |+/-q>, |+/-2q>, etc. "The lowest energy levels of the field are illustrated in Fig.1. The vacuum has energy Eo, which we take as the origin, and the corresponding value of Q is zero. It is the ground state of the field. The lowest excited states, characterized by Q=+q and Q=-q, form two continua beginning at E=mc^2 and stretching to infinity...". I can relate more about the electromagnetic fluctuation field. On p.189, "The fundamental commutation relations between (photon annihilation and creation operators) prevent simultaneous vanishing of the electric and magnetic energies. It follows that the ground state of the quantum field, that is, tha vacuum |0>, has a non-zero absolute energy, and that the variances of E and B in this state are nonzero. This is a purely quantum effect." In other words, space even devoid of significant local particle or photon content, percolates. Think of your television screen with no picture signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 swansont All this "Time is an Illusion" stuff is because there is a "lay" definition of Time and a"scientific" definition of time and people are trying to mash them together.The lay definition is based on our (extremely) falable perceptions. However, the Scientific one is mathematical and is beyond understanding based on our perceptions So illusions and things beyond understanding based on our perceptions are science while an attempt to explain the relationship between such basics as force, anti-force and time are pseudo-science. The statement beyond understanding based on our perceptions is of course similar to all the quotes (by experts) about QT that I have repeatedly submitted to SFN. My proposal is not QT (mathematical prediction theory); it is classical science based on the fact that what little data we have shows that mass X radius = constant. This does for Particle physics what Dirac (1937) Einstein and Straus (1945) and Schuecking (1954) tried to do for the cosmos when each in their time, endeavored to confirm that M/R = Constant (their capitals). Norman Albers Relativity is a classical theory and the proposal that M/R = Constant is made in classical physics terms where the Vacuum Zero Point is a dimensionless point that has a fixed energy. It is this basic energy (equivalent to the background or minimum energy of space in QT) that is the constant referred to in my reply to swansont. Note that the minimum energy level of space deduced using QT is calculated for the situation that exists after universal creation. To find the true or maximum level ZPE it would be necessary to transfer back to the ZPs the energy extracted to create the particles that make up the universe. Note that ZPE is constant because, regardless of whether the energy is within the ZP or in a field around the ZP; it is still the property of the ZP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 swansont All this "Time is an Illusion" stuff is because there is a "lay" definition of Time and a"scientific" definition of time and people are trying to mash them together.The lay definition is based on our (extremely) falable perceptions. However, the Scientific one is mathematical and is beyond understanding based on our perceptions I do wish you'd learn how to use the quote button, which which is at the lower right of each post, and will automatically include the author's name. Edtharan wrote the above piece, which you appear to have attributed to me. So illusions and things beyond understanding based on our perceptions are science while an attempt to explain the relationship between such basics as force, anti-force and time are pseudo-science. No, it's speculation, and I fear you totally missed the point of the statement that you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 It is clear that by selecting which points to reply to, and which points to ignore; combined with the authority to transfer submissions to 'Pseudo-science and Speculations' swansont is able to stifle any debate on the Classical Interpretation of Particle Physics. (note the choice of and instead of the alternative choice of or and the index placement of speculative physics well away fro the other physics forums; in order to discourage any refusal to accept the if you can compute it you understand it school of thought). There are times in life when it is advisable to acknowledge the someone else holds all the aces and further debate is pointless, this is one such time. I admit defeat but, I do not think the winner has achieved anything worthwhile in such a hollow tactical victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Fruit and nut... does not imply the nut is a fruit. If you don't like how speculations are put into speculation forums here I suggest you stop complaining about the staff it's their forum to run how they like, so if you don't like it maybe it's not for you. Your comments are not supported by evidence or commonly accepted in the scientific community so imo this is where they belong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 It is clear that by selecting which points to reply to, and which points to ignore; combined with the authority to transfer submissions to 'Pseudo-science and Speculations' swansont is able to stifle any debate on the Classical Interpretation of Particle Physics. Debating the classical interpretation of particle physics is one thing, proposing a new interpretation is another. The fact that the debate exists here is proof that nothing is being stifled. One or two posts that have been altered because they violated forum rules — rules you agree to abide by when you register. If you want your view to be accepted, come up with some evidence that supports it, and not the standard view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Debating the classical interpretation of particle physics is one thing, proposing a new interpretation is another. QT was started because it was considered impossible to produce a classical interpretation. QT (according to the experts I have quoted on numerous occasions) does not have an interpretation; that is why it is classified as a Mathematical Prediction Theory (if you can compute it you understand it). It follows that I am not proposing a new interpretation; I am proposing an interpretation. When Dirac, Shuecking and Einstien and Straus attempted to show that: M(U)/R(U) = constant There failure was considered a scientific endeavor, it was not dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. When I proposed that a fundamental particle could be constructed using: mr = constant It was dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. You have failed to explain why. When Heiselberg attempted to use QT to explain the cause and relevance of Hall Fractions he concluded that “these approximations should be investigated further”. When I showed that a simple classical explanation was possible using experimentally established Electron Binding Energies; That according to you, is Pseudo-science and speculation. When Mac Gregor tried and failed to unify the four widely different radii values of the electron that was science. When I showed how and why each radii is explained as the different states of a vacuum/anti-vacuum field; that is Pseudo-science and speculation. I would agree that my presentation is poor, but the mathematics and the interpretation are not; science is the search for understanding, it should not be limited to building mathematical castles regardless of their predictive accuracy. If you want your view to be accepted, come up with some evidence that supports it, and not the standard view. How many quantities in QT (such as the fractional charges of quarks) are inserted solely to reach agreement with the mathematical structure of the theory, they are without experimental proof, and as several experts have pointed out the theory is not meant to be understood you should not ask how that particular ‘trick’ is done; if you can compute it you understand it. My mathematics are accompanied by an explanation of how, or why; each particular trick is done. If now, you cannot understand why I feel justified in complaining then, as I wrote earlier there is no point in my continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Debating the classical interpretation of particle physics is one thing, proposing a new interpretation is another. QT was started because it was considered impossible to produce a classical interpretation. QT (according to the experts I have quoted on numerous occasions) does not have an interpretation; that is why it is classified as a Mathematical Prediction Theory (if you can compute it you understand it). It follows that I am not proposing a new interpretation; I am proposing an interpretation. When Dirac, Shuecking and Einstien and Straus attempted to show that: M(U)/R(U) = constant There failure was considered a scientific endeavor, it was not dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. Show me where they were posting this on SFN, and not in peer-reviewed journals, and I'll move their posts immediately. When I proposed that a fundamental particle could be constructed using: mr = constant It was dispatched to Pseudo-science and speculation. You have failed to explain why. See above. Get your material published in peer-reviewed journals and I will be more than glad to leave the threads in one of the physics fora. When Heiselberg attempted to use QT to explain the cause and relevance of Hall Fractions he concluded that “these approximations should be investigated further”. When I showed that a simple classical explanation was possible using experimentally established Electron Binding Energies; That according to you, is Pseudo-science and speculation. When Mac Gregor tried and failed to unify the four widely different radii values of the electron that was science. When I showed how and why each radii is explained as the different states of a vacuum/anti-vacuum field; that is Pseudo-science and speculation. I would agree that my presentation is poor, but the mathematics and the interpretation are not; science is the search for understanding, it should not be limited to building mathematical castles regardless of their predictive accuracy. If you cannot understand why I feel justified in complaining then, as I wrote earlier there is no point in my continuing. Yes, your presentation is poor. IMO, it is well nigh opaque and doesn't lend itself to a person committing the time to muddling through it. So I skip to the major points, like how do electrons a make transitions between these states you propose, and you say you're not interested in answering the question: "you are concerned that I do not explain actions and events, but I am not primarily concerned with either" (from here) Science is concerned with explaining actions and events. With explaining how nature behaves, and testing these proposed explanations experimentally. I shine a photon on an electron, and I don't see transitions between any of the states you propose. How do I confirm these states exist? If you can't confirm that, then you must be wrong. I already have a pretty good idea that you are, because you keep talking simultaneously about Hall fractions and elementary particles, and these are states observed only in certain interactions with magnetic fields. They aren't fundamental states of an electron! You mistook the fractional Hall effect for fractionally charged electrons. Your original hypothesis also depended on the classical electron radius being some physical parameter and having a certain value, and then you decided that was wrong. How did your thesis survive this? Is is possible you can put any value in and still come up with your tables of values? Of what utility is such a construct? IOW, why shouldn't this be in speculations? If you want your view to be accepted, come up with some evidence that supports it, and not the standard view. How many quantities in QT (such as the fractional charges of quarks) are inserted solely to reach agreement with the mathematical structure of the theory, they are without experimental proof, and as several experts have pointed out the theory is not meant to be understood you should not ask how that particular ‘trick’ is done; if you can compute it you understand it. My mathematics are accompanied by an explanation of how, or why; each particular trick is done. Do you have evidence that the quark model is wrong? There is loads of evidence in support of quarks, with all of the properties that they have. And quote mining added to argument from authority isn't something that many people find particularly compelling. Your personal dissatisfaction with quantum theory is just that. Most physicists find it quite useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 If now, you cannot understand why I feel justified in complaining then, as I wrote earlier there is no point in my continuing.I can't understand why you feel justified in complaining. I think you feel insulted when there is no intent to insult. There is no point in your continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 25, 2008 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 swansont Your personal dissatisfaction with quantum theory is just that Quote: The one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that new ideas are needed. Lee Smolin The trouble with Physics Got to: http://www.particlez.org and click on 'why'. Your refusal to separate 'speculation' from 'pseudo-science' and the position in the index of 'Pseudo-science and speculations' together with the totally false comment you attribute to me; says all that needs to be said about bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 No one said QM is complete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 'new ideas' does not mean chuck everything out and start again. it could mean 'new ideas in addition to...' also, an annecdote from a popular science book is hardly the best source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 swansont Your personal dissatisfaction with quantum theory is just that Quote: The one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that new ideas are needed. Lee Smolin The trouble with Physics Got to: http://www.particlez.org and click on 'why'. Yes, science needs new ideas. And they need to be testable and falsifiable if they are to be of any use (and qualify as science), and also be consistent with what we already know to be true. Your refusal to separate 'speculation' from 'pseudo-science' and the position in the index of 'Pseudo-science and speculations' together with the totally false comment you attribute to me; says all that needs to be said about bias. It's not "my refusal" since I do not make the decisions about the names of the various topics. There is a Suggestions, Comments and Support section of which you may avail yourself. And to what false comment do you refer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 insane-alien 'new ideas' does not mean chuck everything out and start again. it could mean 'new ideas in addition to...' I could not agree more. I have frequently given quotes from leading physicist indicating that what is required is a base theory that can be used to give an interpretation of the current mathematical prediction theories. In short its time to put science back into the currently popular mathematical physics an anecdote from a popular science book is hardly the best source. Most of my quotes are from the introductions to text books written for graduates. Others, such as the works of MacGregor; are written for scientists. MacGregor's latest book attempts to explain mass using alpha quantized lifetimes. I have attempted to explain mass in terms of vacuum field structure. I have shown how my work relates to an earlier work by MacGregor dealing with electron radii. I am continually told to get my work published by those who know full well that there is not a hope in hell of doing so. This is because of an hidden process of censorship that pervades physics at present to the extent that even Noble prize winners are unable to get there work published in the correct category (see earlier reference); so what chance has an untrained amateur? I turned to SFN only to find that ultimately, the insidious process of false classification combined with false indexing, is also present on SFN so when Phi for All writes that he (or she) does not understand what I am complaining about; I find that hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I am continually told to get my work published by those who know full well that there is not a hope in hell of doing so. This is because of an hidden process of censorship that pervades physics at present to the extent that even Noble prize winners are unable to get there work published in the correct category (see earlier reference); so what chance has an untrained amateur? I turned to SFN only to find that ultimately, the insidious process of false classification combined with false indexing, is also present on SFN so when Phi for All writes that he (or she) does not understand what I am complaining about; I find that hard to believe. Learn to use the quote button, it's not complicated, you click "Quote". Ah yes the conspiracy theory that'll make people take you seriously. You are speculating, it's in the speculations forum, seems fine to me. And just so you know science doesn't care much for qualitative interpenetration... even the superfluid 2-fluid model is more important for it's mathematical skills than it's idea of how it superfluids work (which we know to be wrong now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 The fact that scientists like empirical evidence and testable, falsifiable predictions, while shunning ad-hoc-ery is by no means hidden, either, and work that ignores this does tend to get excluded. Because it's not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Klaynos Ah yes the conspiracy theory that'll make people take you seriously. Clearly you did not bother to read the report by a Nobel prize winner: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/archivefreedom/main.html I am an amateur, I do not expect to be taken seriously. I do expect to be treated fairly. I expect criticism to be constructive, non-repetitive and made by people who know that a theory that uses the average of selected results is less empirical than one that does not, regardless of the mathematical accuracy of any predictive powers that theory may have. They should also know that the allocation of arbitrary values (such as fractional charge) is speculation and the fact that it fits into a predictive mathematical theory, does not make it any less speculative. The problems that arise from referring to a mathematical prediction theory as science are not my personal opinion they are the opinion held by numerous leading physicists and the need for an interpretive theory is a claim also made by several leading physicists not just by me; I should not need to keep repeating the quotes. I have no objection to my work being classed as speculation; I do have a strong objection to it being classified as Pseudo-science and speculation. And just so you know science doesn't care much for qualitative interpenetration Of course not, what according to those I have frequently quoted, are interested in; is interpretation. I repeat just one example: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". Richard Morris. Or take one I have not quoted before: Are there observations today that we theorist have not asked for, that no theory invites - observations that could move physics in an interesting direction Lee Smolin The Trouble with Physics How about the observation and prediction of Hall fractions on the cosmic scale? You will find it in the appendix to my work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now