[General] Space time and interaction

[Chip Akins]

Hi All

 

First, I want to thank all of you for a delightful and invigorating meeting.  

 

Chandra, a specific thanks to you for doing this work and making such a wonderful sharing of thought possible for us all.

 

For me it was such a pleasure to meet and talk with so many of you.  I am grateful to have had this opportunity beyond words.

 

It is my hope that the concepts shared by so many, will have the distinct effect of sharpening our understanding, individually and collectively.

 

The names people in this group and meeting, who contributed to my better understanding is too long a list for my feeble brain to remember, but I do want to extend a very special thanks to the following individuals:  John W, Martin, Chandra, Richard, Andrew, Bob, Al… and those in the group who did not make the meeting, John D, David, and so many others in the group and at the meeting.  Now I have so many papers to read that it will take me at least a few weeks to absorb and start to comprehend some of the details.

 

Now, to Martin, John W. and others.

 

Below is a thought which I have tried to clarify here for your consideration.  The reason for doing this is specifically for your consideration.

You have both done some very in-depth and important work, in my opinion. So perhaps this sort of discussion will be of value to you in your thought processes, and perhaps you will illustrate to me just how full of “stuff” I am for suggesting such and “illogical” approach.

 

Warmest Regards

 

Chip

 

The real relativity

(Chip) Charles G. Akins

Chip Akins copyright ©2015 all rights reserved worldwide

 

Abstract

In this brief review, we will show that there is only one cause for relativistic transformation in nature. We will show that there cannot be two different causes for relativistic effects because of what we observe in nature. And therefore that the conventional concept of “spacetime” is the wrong solution to the relativity which we experience. This may contradict a foundation of your belief, but please read on.

 

Introduction

It has become clear, for many of us, that the particles of matter (fermions) are made of the same “stuff” that light is made of. This is also clearly hinted at, by the famous equation E=mc2.

Martin van der Mark’s paper: “On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces”[1] gives us further insight into a way this “stuff” which comprises light and matter, can become more  clearly understood. And Martin van der Mark’s paper “Light is heavy” [2] also gives us some specific insight as to the way and reasons that E=mc2.

 

In many instances, we can just use the analogy that matter is made from light. This analogy does not clearly address the principles of the confinement forces required for the “containment” of the waves of light in fermionic particles, but it gets the basic point across nonetheless.

 

This situation of “matter being made from light”, leads us naturally to some analysis of nature, which is quite enlightening, regarding the nature and cause for relativistic transformation.

 

Relativistic Effects

The popular view is that relativity is caused by “spacetime”, a four dimensional construct which supposedly describes the nature of space itself. This is such a prevailing belief, that those who question this premise are often regarded as some form of extremist, by the established scientific community.  What we are suggesting is a good look at the causes demonstrated in nature, to validate or disprove our strongly held beliefs, for this is the stuff that science is made of.

This is not generally a difficult topic to understand.  But it is one that has escaped us somewhat, and which needs to be clarified, for our further understanding and development.

So we will go through a simple, step by step analysis, of the available information, in an attempt to “shed some light”, so to speak, on this important topic.

Each scientific premise we construct contains some assumptions. Hopefully we can minimize those assumptions, in as many ways as possible, as we construct our theories, so that the theories are built upon a more solid foundation.

Robert Close has done an excellent job of illustrating part of the question, in his paper “The Other Meaning of Special Relativity”[3]. We suggest you read and understand the implications of his suggested premise. Because Robert has done a good job of illustrating this concept mathematically we will not address these formulations again here. For a better understanding you can review his work.

 

We will summarize, in our own words, these conclusions.  

It should be pointed out that we came to these conclusions completely independently, and many physicists and scientists have come to the same set, or a similar set, of conclusions independently. These include of course Lorentz, and more recently John Stuart Bell. Bell is widely applauded for “proving” the validity of QM with his inequalities.  But if you carefully read Bell’s work, it becomes clear that he was not of the same opinion.  In fact it becomes clear that Bell was pointing out problems in both of our fundamental theories. QM and relativity.

 

First we need to state, that as a generalization, electric charge and magnetism are observed as a result of the dynamics of fermionic particles. Our measurements, in perhaps all cases, are also made by the interactions of fermionic particles with fields or forces. In this way, our visualization of nature is “filtered” by the properties of fermions. In fact, our entire sensory perception of nature, is specifically caused by the way fermions react with and “filter” the fields and forces of nature. Some have therefore speculated that it is futile to try to understand the details of nature, but that is not the case. If we understand this process of fermions, we can begin to see through this filter and construct a fairly accurate picture of nature. That is a bit beyond the scope of the current writing, so we will, of necessity, address these issues in a later writing.

 

So let us start with the assumption that we are made of the same “stuff” that light is made of, and that “stuff” obeys a certain set of principles.  The “stuff” we refer to is energy.  Space has a set of properties which we can decipher from the way the energy reacts with space. Our starting assumption therefore, is that the basic energy in space, always propagates through space at the speed of light. Then it is energy in space, propagating at the speed of light, which makes light.  This is a fairly safe assumption.  Now we will postulate that the same energy, when confined to very small closed paths, is what creates fermionic particles. It is again beyond the scope of this work to provide the details of this creation of fermionic particles from energy propagating in closed paths, but this approach can provide a robust and elegant view of nature. Our work in this area has proved to be very fruitful, and the works of many others including John Williamson[4] and Martin van der Mark [1,2], is validating this premise, to an extent that it seems that it will become a much clearer definition of nature than we currently have.

But for now, I will ask you to accept this premise that matter is made from the same stuff that light is made of, just for the sake of exploring the principles behind relativity.

 

We have come to understand waves fairly well.  This is primarily because we have so many illustrations of how waves behave.  Sound waves are a useful analogy as we explore the principle of relativity. But first let us state a result of our earlier premise, the premise that we are made of the same stuff that light is made of. If this premise is correct, then it would mean that the length and time, as measured by light propagation, would be exactly the same length and time we would measure using material rulers and clocks.  Therefore, even apart from the suggestion provided by E=mc2, that light and matter are made of the same stuff, the measurement of length and time being the same when measured by light, as they are when measured my material rulers and clocks, also suggests that we are made of the same stuff that light is made of, and that this energy that everything is made of, propagates through space at the speed of light. As Robert Close has also so clearly pointed out, we do not have to resort to any non-Euclidian definition of space to achieve this result.

 

Now comes the interesting part.  

There can be only one relativity.  Both the “spacetime” relativity popularly accepted, and this relativity based on the observable clues, require Lorentz types of transformations. So we are stuck with either one or the other being correct. Both cannot be right, because if both were right, and each requiring Lorentz transformations, then nature would show us that we need to apply Lorentz transformations twice to length or time, in order to get the correct answer. But nature has shown us that the correct answer comes from only one application of these transformations.

 

Now for the “logical” consequences…

So that, if you accept that light and matter are made of the same stuff propagating through space at the “speed of light” you have already accepted a condition which causes our rulers and clocks to be transformed by Lorentz transformations. So, logically, there is no room for another interpretation for relativity.  This is a “painful” situation. For this situation has some other interesting consequences. Space is, in this situation, a 3 dimensional “fixed” medium. And in this situation “spacetime” does not exist.

 

References

[1] Martin van der Mark, “On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces”

[2] Martin van der Mark, “Light is heavy”

[3] Robert Close, “The Other Meaning of Special Relativity”

[4] John Williamson “On the nature of the photon and the electron”

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

 

Chip and all,

   de Broglie’s Ph.D. thesis “The theory of quanta” translated by Al Kracklauer is attached.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150814/d5990564/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OtherRelativity.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 580975 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150814/d5990564/attachment-0001.pdf>