<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle17
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
p.Default, li.Default, div.Default
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Dear Chip,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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!).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>There are no (just) clocks in space. Particles are rulers. Particles are (at the same time!) clocks. Particles are (at the same time!)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Now I digress a little … let me come back to your email.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Bell – yes you are right- Bell was flagging up difficulties in both and between them.
Good man.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Agreed we are made of the same stuff as light.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Agreed on measurement. Disagree on Euclidean. Euclidian is too simple.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>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?!
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Fun thinking about these things isn’t it!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;tab-stops:12.0cm"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Cheers, John W.</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
P.S. Only five hours left till the university office opens now .. Time for Tea!<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF62864"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 14, 2015 4:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Space time and interaction<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi All</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">First, I want to thank all of you for a delightful and invigorating meeting.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chandra, a specific thanks to you for doing this work and making such a wonderful sharing of thought possible for us all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It is my hope that the concepts shared by so many, will have the distinct effect of sharpening our understanding, individually and collectively.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Now, to Martin, John W. and others.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Below is a thought which I have tried to clarify here for your consideration. The reason for doing this is specifically for your consideration.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Warmest Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:24.0pt">The real relativity</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">(Chip) Charles G. Akins</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chip Akins copyright ©2015 all rights reserved worldwide</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b>Abstract</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b>Introduction</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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=mc<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p class="Default">Martin van der Mark’s paper: “<u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces</span></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">”<sup>[1]
</sup>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 “<u>Light is heavy</u>”
<sup>[2]</sup> also gives us some specific insight as to the way and reasons that E=mc<sup>2</sup>.</span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">In many instances, we can just use the analogy that
<b>matter is made from light</b>. 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.</span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><b>Relativistic Effects</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <i>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.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robert Close has done an excellent job of illustrating part of the question, in his paper “<u>The Other Meaning of Special Relativity</u>”<sup>[3]</sup>. 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We will summarize, in our own words, these conclusions. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <b>both</b> of our fundamental theories. QM <b>and</b> relativity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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
<i>energy in space</i>, 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<sup>[4]</sup> and Martin van der Mark <sup>
[1,2]</sup>, is validating this premise, to an extent that it seems that it will become a much clearer definition of nature than we currently have.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But for now, I will ask you to accept this premise <i>that matter is made from the same stuff that light is made of</i>, just for the sake of exploring the principles behind relativity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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=mc<sup>2</sup>, 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Now comes the interesting part.</b> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<i>So we are stuck with either one or the other being correct. Both cannot be right,</i> because if both were right, and each requiring Lorentz transformations, then nature would show us that we need to
<b>apply Lorentz transformations twice</b> 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Now for the “logical” consequences…</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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, <i>there is no room for another interpretation for relativity</i>. 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>References</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">[1] Martin van der Mark, “<u>On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces</u>”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">[2] Martin van der Mark, “<u>Light is heavy</u>”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">[3] Robert Close, “<u>The Other Meaning of Special Relativity</u>”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">[4] John Williamson <u>“On the nature of the photon and the electron”</u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 10, 2015 11:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Space time and interaction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip and all,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> de Broglie’s Ph.D. thesis “The theory of quanta” translated by Al Kracklauer is attached.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>