[General] Space time and interaction

[Chip Akins]

Hi John W

 

Hope your workload allows you to also get this fun and important stuff done.

 

My workload has been daunting as well.

 

When we study the motion (displacement) of space, as energy propagates
through space, of course we MUST use time as a component of that set of
actions.

So I fully agree, that time is a required fourth component for proper
calculations of any sort which involves motion. Including the evolution of
the fields created in these processes.  Dynamics simply includes time,
always.

My suggestion however, is that we do not have to assume that a specific
approach to relativity is absolutely right, simply because the math seems to
work for the circumstances we have explored. We probably have enough
information to understand exactly why relativity is precisely the way it is.
And if we do understand why, then we are more likely to get our mathematical
models right.

It is in fact surprising how similar these versions of relativity are,
specifically regarding the mathematics which naturally develop as a
consequence of matter being made of the same stuff as light.  But in the
very few areas where these two versions of relativity are different, we may
see some eye-opening consequences of using one versus the other.

But in short, the mathematics is supposed to model the physics.  The physics
we have been exploring is that matter is made of the same stuff as light.
The assumption that matter is made from the same stuff as light, is
supported in many ways in our observable universe. So this is probably the
correct approach to the makeup of matter.  That approach, in itself,
provides for a detailed and precise definition for the cause of relativity.
An unavoidable consequence.  So it is also likely the correct version of
relativity.

While I agree that the full representation of the field equations, can be
treated in a way that produces several 4-spaces mathematically, this is
still just a mathematical representation of what is really going on. These
do not have to be viewed as individual, real, 4-spaces.  But rather should
probably be viewed as all being an individual aspect of the same space. In
other words they are representations of potentials, strains, stresses, and
the resultant "fields" we sense.  The cause for which are the displacement,
and the properties of space.

When we view the universe from the frame of a particle, we see things
differently, than we would if we viewed things from another perspective.
This is an artifact of relativity. But what if there is a reference frame in
space, and we could, in our mind's eye, view all these dynamics from that
frame.  This simplifies the single particle analysis a bit.  It also
provides us with a clear basis for working out multiple inertial frames, and
seeing how frame to frame relativity all works out. Such an approach seems
to remove inconsistencies, paradox, and ambiguity from our thinking and
analysis.

One real benefit that this approach provides is a form of "absolute
relativity" for the dynamics of energy propagating through space.  This is a
natural consequence of the form of relativity I have been suggesting.  When
we do a discrete time analysis of these "waves" propagating through space,
we can see that everywhere, space imposes specific kinds of limits on the
displacement, and therefore propagation, due to the identifiable properties
of space.

While we are taking different paths, we may wind up with strikingly similar
results, probably because we are following the evidence, and it will
eventually lead us to only one place.

Warmest Regards

 

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:23 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; Nick Bailey
<nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>;
quicycle at gmail.com; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Joakim
Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>; Ariane Mandray
<ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

 

Dear Chip,

Thank you for your thoughtful email and for the reference to Robert Close's
work. Getting round to chasing up your email has been on my "to-do" list
since I returned, but has had to wait till now because of the volume of work
associated with, mostly, re-take exams. This has not yet finished,
unfortunately, but there is nothing I can do to progress the current
problems until the University office opens in seven hours time (at 8am).
Given that I'm just up for a morning session yesterday - that means some
nine free hours to do some real work! Deep joy!

Just read your email again and the Robert Close article. In my view he is on
the right track, at least to a certain extent. He is certainly right that
Dirac solutions have parallels in torsion wave systems: this is obvious
because if something is both going at lightspeed, and staying where it is,
then it had better be going round and round in circles! This is indeed what
the Dirac solutions do- as is easily shown by direct integration (as Dirac
does of course!).  

Martin and my model was originally derived by using an engineering system
with torsion - the intrinsic torsion in a belt - grounded by putting it into
a double-loop configuration. This is a start, but one needs to go (much)
further in really understanding what is going on.

Firstly, one needs to understand that any theory putting forces, or
torsions, in had better have a very good model for those forces or torsions.
Motion of an isolated body must be force-free. This does not mean that there
are no "forces" but that they must balance. For example Newton's law F=ma is
a force-free equation. This does not mean there are no forces! Rewrite with
all the proper vector forces and one has F-ma=0. There you go. Force free!

Likewise and motion of a light or material body must be force-free. The
Maxwell equations, for example, are sufficient that the forces balance -
because a full force equation (e.g. FdF=0 for the generalised Lorentz force
is satisfied if dF=0).

Ok, so far so simple - now comes the deep and hard bit of relativity to
swallow: space and time are fluid - merging into one another and everywhere
different, yet they obey the same equations everywhere, but then with
reference to the local space and the local time. This is (at least
partially) what Close and also people like Michael Mobley at the conference
are arguing. 

This is not easy to understand, and even more difficult to deal with for
light-speed rotating systems. To emphasise the magnitude of the problem:
Dirac, for example, does not do this. At least he does not do it right!

What a lot of folk do not get is that light-speed is both fixed (as measured
in any frame) and, in another (momentum) space limitless. One cannot go
faster than light, yet one may have any momentum up to infinity. This is a
hyperbolic space. In conflict with what several mebers of our group at the
conference seem to believe, if a lightspeed rotating system moves all the
bits remain at lightspeed - they just redshift and blueshift. Elementary
expositions of relativity have lots of observers with clocks - but this is
too simple a picture to really grasp what is going on. In the redshifted bit
the rulers have stretched and the frequency (clocks- if you like -though
there are two clocks according to deBroglie) slowed. In the blueshifted bits
the frequency has speeded up and the rulers shrunk. This is part of what
Close is saying, but I do not think he is all the way there. I could be
wrong here as I have not yet read all of his work, or talked to the guy. The
thing is that to deal with this rigourously talk is no good: one needs to
develop a proper (mathematical) system that does this automatically. It is
just too hard, otherwise, for a monkey brain (even highly evolved!) to get.
Trying to develop such a mathematics has cost me (and Martin) a lot of time
in the last couple of decades.

The result of all this effort, however, is that the solutions to my new
(extended Maxwell) equations do contain a force-free torsion. The solutions
rotate automatically. Necessarily. In free-fall. By their very nature. Look
at them! The torsional rotation of the figure in the "quantisation" paper is
not put in from observation. That is what the solution to the equation does.

Such solutions scale smoothly as one changes frame - because they are
designed from the ground up to do so. They are properly relativistic in each
and every frame. All that scales is the factor R - the length and time scale
of the local rulers and clocks.  There are no (just) clocks in space.
Particles are rulers. Particles are (at the same time!) clocks. Particles
are (at the same time!)  characterised by a particular frequency (their
mass-energy). One needs to get all THREE of these right! (One needs to get
more besides as well, as the "curvature" is in yet another space - this
leads to the angular momentum-need to get this right too). Ho-hum.

Now I digress a little . let me come back to your email.

Agree entirely that the start needs to be as simple as possible. Apologies
to all as to how complicated a seriously simple start makes things
subsequently!

Bell - yes you are right- Bell was flagging up difficulties in both and
between them. Good man.

Yes - to an extent - but our "visualization" is filtered primarily by
fermion-pairs. Atoms. At simplest a proton and electron in Hydrogen.
Everything we see touch taste hear and feel comes from atomic transitions -
not direct interactions with fermions (unless one hits you really fast with
at least midge-momentum!). I'm pretty sure it is here that the
"quantisation" of photons originates (as argued in the quantisation paper.

Agreed we are made of the same stuff as light.

Agreed on measurement. Disagree on Euclidean. Euclidian is too simple.

Disagree on "only one relativity". Think one needs relativity of space-time,
relativity of field, realtivity of energy-momentum, realtivity of angular
momentum .etc. Agree that there is only one theory, though. Relativity, as
we know it, is (probably) an aspect of this. Agree, however, that there is
only one relativity of length and time. Semantics strikes again! 

For me the only relevant scales of length and time for a given particle are
the particles length (as given by its built in wavelength) and the particles
time (as given by its built in frequency-clock). It does not matter to the
particle how it came by these - only what they are. This is all it has. For
me space is stiff, strong, smooth and very elastic. A perfect particle-less
fluid. It is mass-less yet scaled by mass. Big is small. Bigger mass -
smaller space - higher frequency. Energy is inverse time. For me it is not
so much that there exists space and time, but that there exists inverse
space and inverse time. In my "position" I have taken that there exists only
space, time and square-root energy. I have tried in the past to take the
simpler position that there exists only inverse space (momentum) and inverse
time (energy), at least in the experience of an "observer". The outer
universe is then constructed by the interactions with this object, according
to the object. The problem is that one really needs a degree of freedom to
describe hot and cold, slow and fast and the plethora of forms that energy
can take. 4-D, in that it maps to 3D in four ways - does this beautifully.
Giving the forms of mass, currents, fields and angular momenta as
fundamental forms. I do not see how just 3D hacks this. 

Coming from the philosophical to the practical, I have a couple of problems
with a 3D "fixed" medium. Firstly I do not see anything for it to be fixed
to apart from existing particles. The only physical inter-actors in the
universe do seem to be the particles themselves. Why invent something else
if it is not needed? Secondly I think it conflicts with experiment. I worked
on scattering with protons in a fixed frame at CERN (EMC) and with (pairs
of) protons in a quickly moving frame (R807 at the ISR). Both at CM energies
many times the proton rest mass (200GeV and 63GeV respectively). The first
thing you do is apply the relativistic kinematics. This works to give
spherically-symmetric results in both cases. It gives the same cross-section
in both cases. In the ISR case, for a fixed medium, both protons should be
hugely shrunk (by a factor of about 9000) and one would really notice this!
I could be wrong here - but would need to run the maths (which may already
have been done).  There has been a lot of work done on Lorentz realtivity
and neo Lorentz relativity ( by Reg Cahill amongst others). This may all
work- but I would need to see it. Help anyone?! 

Anyway: the mathematics of ordinary relativity DOES work. Even if one
assumes the (simple) shrinking of rulers and clocks one still needs to
explain why and how they shrink with relation to the medium of space. To a
very great extent it does not matter, of course, if space were properly oval
(or any spastic hamburger of a shape), and rulers (and clocks) shrank and
expanded as you rotated them precisely ovally one would not notice. It then
has no meaning to speculate what that intrinsic grid may look like as it has
no measurable consequence. My main difficulty in paralleling reality is that
relativistic 4-differentials give me everything I need, just and no more,
and 3-differentials just don't.

Conclusion is: there is (at most) only one solution to Hilbert's sixth. I
think, though, even if we ever get it, there will still be room for
philosophizing about other things which make no measurable difference. If
that is all it is, then they may as well not be there.

Not sure this throws too much light on the matter. One final thought though:
imagine a universe with space and time (and energy if you like) but without
rotations. One can do it - but would you like it. I think you need more than
just 3D space (and even rotations in 3D space) I think you need rotations in
the space-time plane too. 

Fun thinking about these things isn't it!

Cheers, John W.

P.S. Only five hours left till the university office opens now .. Time for
Tea!

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 4:53 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

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 C2015 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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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/20150828/bb7afe05/attachment.htm>