<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" bgColor=#ffffff ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi John, John and
others,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks, John & John, for your
respective responses to my earlier email. I acknowledge the points that
you have both made, however I get the strong impression that you both take the
view either that I'm naively ignorant of significant facets of SR and GR
(including notably the apparent correspondence of fact with theory re
SR over a wide experiential landscape) or that I'm over-simplifying either
or both. I'd like you rather to consider the possibility that I'm
aware of all of these things but, having looked a little more deeply than most
into certain aspects of SR (presumably because others saw SR as a done deal,
with no looking-into needed), I have found reasons to question its fundamental
premise as it's virtually universally applied.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John D, I agree 100% with your
observation that speed of light is measured as c from within ANY reference frame
(including non-inertial), essentially because of: (a) the cyclic-photon
structure of observers and measuring instruments ('rulers and clocks'); (b) the
'electromagnetic texture' of space in a gravitational field [a subject I look at
in some detail in my book, including derivation of The Equivalence Principle,
and in less detail in a paper published in Kybernetes, Nov 2011]. I
believe it's been widely understood for over a century that light speed in
a gravitational field is NOT measured as c from a reference frame static
wrt that field but not within it - I don't see that as a failing of SR, nor of
authors such as Penrose et al. I agree that the idealised state (inertial
frame) of SR exists virtually nowhere, however since GR builds on SR it's
essential to get the facts straight wrt SR. That's why I've focused here
on SR (as I hoped I'd made clear).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John W, you say in response to my
query re evidence for SR: "Yes, lots!" [of support] "There are loads of
supporters!" First I'd say that 'loads of supporters' for a theory doesn't
make it right - just ask Lavoisier about phlogiston. Second I would say
that my query was explicitly stated in terms of practical evidence for the
postulate (as SR is universally interpreted) of objective inertial frame
symmetry. NONE of the examples that you cite constitute evidence of such
an objective truth, as I see it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John, you say, over and over, "It
works!" Well of course it works! Nobody in their right mind could
believe that four generations of highly intelligent physicists, including many
of the best brains on the planet, would continue to rely on a theory that didn't
work!! I myself am one of the foremost proponents of the fact that the
Lorentz Transformation, as practically applied, works. More than this, I
go into meticulous detail in my book to show WHY it works - i.e why
measured interactions between reference frames, of the types you describe,
are consistent with the theory - in a universe in which material particles are
formed from closed-loop photons. I further show WHY speed-related time
dilation happens, as an objective reality (though not symmetrically - and no
known evidence exists for such objective symmetry), for both a
multi-particle object or system and for an indivisible elementary particle such
as a muon (for which RTD evidence exists, of course). More than that, I
show that ALL of this is consistent with a universe having a unique universal
rest-state relative to which all other 'rest frames' are in objective states of
motion. [And that NONE of the experiential data offers ANY evidence for
the 'frame-symmetric' universe posited by the (restricted) Principle of
Relativity as it's universally interpreted.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>John, you referred in another email
to your Equation 21 in your 'toroidal photon' paper. In that equation you
identify (very correctly, in my view) the 'time-like' and 'space-like'
components of the frequency of the formative photon of a particle in
motion. You appear to imply, again correctly in my view, that the
space-like component would not be apparent (some might say 'would not exist') in
the particle's own 'rest frame'. I'd like to walk through a simple thought
experiment based on that perspective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Consider an observer in the lab frame
who has a device capable of counting the cycles of the formative
photon in a particle at rest; this shows as a counter notching up number of
cycles as time passes. To this device is added an atomic clock calibrated
to run at precisely the same rate as the resting cycle-rate of this particle:
the two counters will remain precisely in synch when counter and particle are
both at rest in the lab.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>The lab observer then sets this
device moving at constant speed alongside the particle, which now moves at that
same speed. As I believe we're agreed, the 'space-like' oscillation
frequency will not be apparent to the meter moving alongside, but the
'time-like' oscillation will - at the rate, from the lab observer's perspective,
as given in your Equation 21 (since this is the equation for the moving particle
as apparent to the lab observer), i.e. the same 'time-like' rate that this
observer would expect to see for a static particle (since that's the term in
your equation). However the atomic clock will be subject to speed-related
time dilation and so will run slower from the perspective of the lab
observer. That lab observer, and so also an observer moving with the
particle and meter, will see the two readings getting out of synch - which would
not happen in the lab frame. But these are just two inertial frames, which
are equivalent according to SR.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[Note that this thought experiment is
presented totally from the perspective of the static lab observer, to avoid any
possibly spurious assumptions re the view from the moving frame. Of course
no time-dilation adjustment is needed for the cycle reading on the counting
device as this is event-driven rather than time-driven - using as a reference
the events as documented in your Eq'n 21 for the moving particle.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I've attached the pdfs (& 1
Word) of my relevant posts for you and others who don't take to Java.
I'd be most interested in your thoughts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[The PDFs don't include the web-page
preamble, but should be self explanatory.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>In my view SR is not just lacking "at
the margins"; the way that it is applied (which it need not be, according to
Einstein's wording as I read it) is fundamentally flawed at its core. If
we continue to fail to recognise that then, yes, we'll continue to do
experiments that work - including some very clever experiments - but we'll also
continue to fail to identify crucial aspects of reality that could be of
inestimable benefit. Again, if we'd stuck to just experimenting with
visible frequencies we'd always have proved ourselves 'right' (it would always
work) - but we wouldn't have most of the technological marvels that we have
around us today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[Note also that I'm NOT advocating
ditching SR as practiced, at the LHC or elsewhere; as an engineering tool it is
invaluable. However I AM advocating, very strongly, that we do not tie our
own hands in ANY area of scientific research by mistaking subjective observation
and measurement for objective reality.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</A> ; <A
title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</A> ; <A
title=sleary@vavi.co.uk href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=slf@unsw.edu.au href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 17, 2016 3:56 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] PS: Matter
comprised of light-speed energy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV id=divBdy class=bdyItmPrt _fallwcm="1">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=black size=2 face=Tahoma><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" dir=ltr>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <SPAN lang=en-US>Hello John, Richard, Viv and
Grahame and everyone.<BR><BR>Sorry, many of you will get this twice, as I
forgot to include the more general mailing
list.<BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>Reg too, if you are out
there.</SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US><BR>Richard and Viv
are so right, you too Grahame (in a different way) and you too John (in
yet a different way). Being right however, does not make something else
"wrong". A theory is something which, as a theorist, one steps into and out of
like a suit of clothes. It is appropriate within its realm of validity. It is
a childs model of the universe, valid in some respects, and helpful to us in
aiding thinking. Einstein was a great thinker, who thought many thoughts, and
any specific quote of his cannot be taken to circumscribe that thinking or be
definitive of the truth. I agree: Einstein would be horrified at us holding
him up as an authority. So would any proper
scientist!</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>We have had a discussion, at length,
earlier on this forum. You can download the stuff and there are hundreds of
pages from me alone on this topic – so I can not and will not reproduce that
all here. Some disconnected jottings follow,
however.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>Now Graham, I have not been able to
look at your web-pages yet. They use Java, which I do not allow to run on this
machine. Do you have anything on the same stuff in plainer
form?</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>I am with you on this Grahame: the
base postulates of special relativity are not completely correct in all
possible scenarios (for example in the presence of gravitational fields as
John mentions). Having said this, for all practical purposes, the corrections
to SR of GR are negligibly small and theories attempting to use this to
confine the electron, such as geometrodynamics do not work because the
resultant forces are just far too small. I am also aware that many of the
experiments purported to “prove” SR may be interpreted as arising from
different effects such as variations in the stuff of which the measurement
equipment is made. There are also experiments to support the existence of an
“absolute” frame. One of the major exponents of this, Reg Cahill, gave an
interesting talk at SPIE but has not been involved in discussions further on
this forum. None of this matters. Even if SR is wrong in detail, it is very
very right in many respects in that it provides, over a wider range of
phenomena in my view, a better description than anything else of equal
simplicity and beauty. Now, for my theory, I do not start with SR, but with a
deeper principle I call absolute relativity (AR!). This comes about, for me,
from trying to understand what the elementary process we call multiplication
and division actually MEAN when we apply them to such things as “space” and
“time”. That is what does “division” parallel in the underlying natural
universe when we divide “space” by “time” and get “velocity”. Now this
underlying process, whatever it is, is well-described in an engineering sense,
by SR. On the other hand, I can derive the base relations of SR from a deeper
set of principles. That is what I am after: the basis on which the natural
world resides, and from which the phenomena of the natural world (all of them)
can be described. I am just curious as to how everything works. For me, I try
to understand this by rigorously defining “multiplication” and “division”,
maintaining tokens representing space and time and such things as areas and
volumes in space-time through my new theory. The result seems to be – if one
does this, one derives continuous electromagnetism more elegantly than in
standard textbooks, derives forces capable of turning a localized photon and
forming the double loop, derive the basis of quantum electrodynamics capable
and also derive a theory which precisely parallels SR in one limit. I think
this is quite cool.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>For me, as an engineer, what is most
important is what works. What is important for me as a theorist is finding as
complete a description of as much of the natural universe as is possible,
based on as few and as natural a set of starting parameters as
possible.</SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US> </SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US>I keep putting
on taking off my various theoretical “hats”, looking at it this way and that,
and trying to puzzle out what makes most sense, and what leads to the most
complete description. For me, as for you, and as for many of us here, at
present that seems best viewed through the prism of light, its underlying
basis and light inter-actions. For me the basis of this is deeper than field,
or even than space and time, but has to do with the root of “space” and “time”
and “energy”. Theory is not a chocolate box where one can pick what one likes
and forget the rest – lots of it impacts elsewhere. New theory must maintain
and underpin the old where this works well. Old practical theory (by
“practical” I mean stuff that allows one to engineer new stuff, not airy-fairy
stuff pulled out of your nose and further useful for nothing- like string
theory) is not usually “wrong”, it is just not quite fully “right” in every
respect.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>Now you ask: is there any support for
SR out there? The answers is: yes lots! There are loads of supporters!
Although not familiar in everyday life to most, as a professional at CERN one
uses it to design the machines which accelerate particles (it works!), to
describe the increase of energy with velocity, limited by lightspeed, (it
works!), to understand the apparent (many hundreds of times) longer lifetimes
particles exhibit if they are moving at close to lightspeed (it works!). To
describe the limiting of particles to lightspeed, whatever the added energy,
(it works). To describe, equally, things accelerated hitting objects virtually
at rest with respect to the distant stars, and the same objects hitting each
other in a colliding beam machine (I have worked on both sorts of experiments
– it works, believe me) It works, works and works again. Now I understand that
competing theories work in many respects, but I have yet to see one which does
them all (the killer for many is getting the observed time-dilation right).
Now for me it is fine to discard or deepen the conceptual basis. That is what
I am trying to do. It is NOT fine, however, to throw any theory away unless
you replace it with something equally good or better – and that precisely
parallels what one observes in reality, that allows one to engineer a particle
accelerator, and that allows one to understand the measured properties of
particles as observed in experiment.</SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US>
</SPAN><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>SR may be “wrong” in detail at the
outer margins, but it is very, very right in practice. Whatever replaces it
had better reproduce it where it counts – or it will be contradicted not just
by “experiment” but by actual standard engineering practice. </SPAN><SPAN
lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US><BR></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT size=3 face=Cambria><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN lang=en-US>Regards -
John.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>