<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems to me that what cannot be determined at a point, cannot be an ontological THING. Rather it is a concept calculated from measurements at 2 or more points. Thus, particles at r(t) are ontic objects, but momentum for which one needs at least the info of r(t_1) & r(_2) to determine, actually only estimate as the THING (particle with mass m) may be accelerating, cannot be ontic things. The situation is even more complex for angular momentum, i.e., one needs even more r(t_i)'s to calculate it. etc. In the end, what's at r(t) is a thing and all the rest of it is conceptual---no matter how it is packaged (in space-time/Hestenes) multivectors (tensors, etc.).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag, 29. August 2015 um 17:32 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Space time and interaction</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>Dear Chip,</div>
<div>I realize we have not discussed the matter of space-time well enough while we were at the conference.</div>
<div>The 4 copies of marhematical spaces as presented in the geometric algebra are an accurate representation of position, velocity (momentum), orientation and rotation (angular momentum) within a single framework. When we look at the world, with our eyes, or with any other means of interrogation, we project out, onto our internal reference what we see/ measure. That IS the essential of an interaction/measurement. It appears/seems consistent to use a 3 plus 1 dimensional space-time for the reference. The projection is the projection, and not the real ting. Velocities are not positions, just as the x is not the y coordinate.</div>
<div>Our real space really is, really is, really is 16 dimensional, but it works wonderfully well to see (= project) it as 4 similar spaces on a 3+1 dimensional space. Cl(1,3) does all of it for free, precisely.</div>
<div>In fact, you have been using this all your life already, but may only realise it now.</div>
<div>Very best, Martin<br/>
<br/>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</div>
<div><br/>
Op 28 aug. 2015 om 19:54 heeft Chip Akins <<a href="chipakins@gmail.com" target="_parent">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> het volgende geschreven:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
p {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
p.default, li.default, div.default {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
span.emailstyle17 {
color: black;
}
span.emailstyle18 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
span.EmailStyle22 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Hi John W</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Hope your workload allows you to also get this fun and important stuff done.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">My workload has been daunting as well.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">My suggestion however, is that <i>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</i>. We probably have enough information to understand <i>exactly why relativity is precisely the way it is</i>. And if we do understand why, then <i>we are more likely to get our mathematical models right</i>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">But in short, <i>the mathematics is supposed to model the physics</i>. 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. <i>That approach, in itself, provides for a detailed and precise definition for the cause of relativity</i>. An unavoidable consequence. So it is also likely the correct version of relativity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Warmest Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Chip</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0in;"><b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> General [<a href="general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:23 PM<br/>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Kyran Williamson <<a href="kyran_williamson@hotmail.com" target="_parent">kyran_williamson@hotmail.com</a>>; Nick Bailey <<a href="nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_parent">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; Anthony Booth <<a href="abooth@ieee.org" target="_parent">abooth@ieee.org</a>>; <a href="quicycle@gmail.com" target="_parent">quicycle@gmail.com</a>; Manohar . <<a href="manohar_berlin@hotmail.com" target="_parent">manohar_berlin@hotmail.com</a>>; Joakim Pettersson <<a href="joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_parent">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>>; Ariane Mandray <<a href="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_parent">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>><br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Space time and interaction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">Dear Chip,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">Now I digress a little … let me come back to your email.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">Agreed we are made of the same stuff as light.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">Agreed on measurement. Disagree on Euclidean. Euclidian is too simple.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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?! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">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;"><span style="color: black;">Fun thinking about these things isn’t it!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black;">Cheers, John W.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">P.S. Only five hours left till the university office opens now .. Time for Tea!</span></p>
<div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0in;text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"/></div>
<div id="divRpF62864">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;"> General [<a href="general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Chip Akins [<a href="chipakins@gmail.com" target="_parent">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<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</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<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 align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 24.0pt;color: black;">The real relativity</span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;">(Chip) Charles G. Akins</span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;">Chip Akins copyright ©2015 all rights reserved worldwide</span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black;">Abstract</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black;">Introduction</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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>.</span></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 align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black;">Relativistic Effects</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">We will summarize, in our own words, these conclusions. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: black;">Now comes the interesting part.</span></b><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: black;">Now for the “logical” consequences…</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: black;">References</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;">[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;color: black;">[2] Martin van der Mark, “<u>Light is heavy</u>”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;">[3] Robert Close, “<u>The Other Meaning of Special Relativity</u>”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;color: black;">[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 rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;color: black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;color: black;"> General [</span><a href="general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;color: black;">] <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 <</span><a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;color: black;">><br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Space time and interaction</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Chip and all,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> de Broglie’s Ph.D. thesis “The theory of quanta” translated by Al Kracklauer is attached.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br/>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></span><br/>
<span><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br/>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br/>
<span></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<hr/><font color="Gray" face="Arial" size="1">The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.</font><br/>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>