IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: New Physics
Topic Summary:
Created On: 12 August 2013 04:58 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 08 October 2013 08:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: kengreen

Your final addition highlights what I conSsider to bEe the ultimate sIin in classical physics, namely that you comment on the characteristics of d and c when Iin fact you know nothing of which I write? IIn my work c has no existence and so caNnnot be in error?



I was referring to the view that c does have a physical existence.

For example physicists at Gran Sasso measured the speed of neutrinos travelling from CERN to Gran Sasso. After correcting a measurement error they found that the neutrinos travelled at the same speed that light would in a vacuum tube constructed on the neutrino flight path between CERN to Gran Sasso.

Now I believe that the neutrino motion exists independent of our decision to measure it.

One way speed measurements using light could be constructed using a long vacuum tube and they could in principle be made more accurate than neutrino speed measurements.

Using simple aether theories that are consistent with stellar aberration measurements, the speed of light measured this way should vary with time, because of how the earth rotates and moves; changing the orientation any experiment relative to the main velocity component of our motion through the cosmos in the process.

In observable terms this is the orientation of the experiment with respect to the rest frame of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This orientation changes with time; with diurnal and other longer timescale variations.

However according to Einstein variations in the measured speed of light in a vacuum are impossible to observe. Whatever the orientation and speed of the experiment with respect to the cosmos (the CMBR rest frame), the result is always the same result, c, a constant, the velocity of light in a vacuum. I think he is right on this particular matter, despite the fact that I don't like Special Relativity theory and Maxwell's theory as theoretical constructs.

c^2 exists the ratio between the electric system of units and the magnetic system of units in Maxwell's theory. c^2 exists as the conversion factor between mass and energy in Special Relativity. c takes its place within the dimensionless fine structure constant. So on and so forth.

Looking for a New Physics without c, looks to me like an trying to find a new undiscovered ocean without water.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 October 2013 11:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

James,

I fear that you remind me of the long past great scientists who hurled bitter insults at each other across the floors of academia as they discussed the pros and cons of phlogiston. The battle was fierce and prisoners were forbidden because neither side listened to the other - much as my navel padre at Harwich used to describe an Irish Parliament in which everybody talks and not a soul listenes?

You are lining up against me with all the tired old cliche's of classical physics which today boasts more words than credible arguments which are based on logic such as was championed by Euclid.

I am not, was not and will not be looking for a new physics; all that i set out to do - and still seek - is still fill-in some of the gaping holes right down in the foundations of the thoughtless prognostications which have, curiously, become become embedded in modern holy utterance. As far as I'm concerned, a constant c does not represent the so-called speed of light because I do not consider that light moves any more than I accept the absurdity that time is a dimension!

I am not seeking to destroy the pile of words which gives you so much delight because I abhor destructive criticism. Why not wait until you can read the Word of Ken and then put forward some honest criticism which alone can form the basis of civilised debate? Criticism can flow only from an open mind.

Ken Green
 09 October 2013 11:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

James
C is constant because the space is all magnetized the same way; at right angles to the line of force irrespective of motion of sender or receiver.
If only we could get Maxwells equations into a 3D electromagnetic format then this would become clear. WMAP results are the positive experimental proof that there are massless forces in the universe other than gravity.
CliveS
 09 October 2013 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: acsinuk

"C is constant because the space is all magnetized the same way; at right angles to the line of force irrespective of motion of sender or receiver."


Space can store magnetic field energy (somehow), although it cannot be magnetized like a bar of steel.

Using Faraday's "line of force" or "tube of force" terminology is pre-Maxwellian, pre the discovery of a connection between electric and magnetic forces and the nature and speed of light.

In Maxwell's Theory the equations now really become just energy relations. We don't really talk in terms of the physical properties of space anymore, like Faraday did, because according to Maxwell's theory energy appears to be stored in the field in a non-unique way.

Even worse than this, force as a concept has been re-interpreted in quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics: electrical and magnetic forces no longer reside in the field, to be described in a non-unique way using by Maxwell's energy relations. The Electric force between two charged bodies and magnetic force between two magnets is now explained by the exchange of virtual photons.

I don't really accept the virtual photon model account for electric and magnetic forces as satisfactory. It sort of puts c at the base of our physics in the way perhaps Ken is alluding to. I think that c, the speed of light in a vacuum, must be understood in terms of more fundamental and primitive notions (and as far as I can see that must mean an explicit theory of space and its properties).

In this regard we can only rely on the analogy between electromagnetic waves and other sorts of waves or harmonic motion: energy is transforming from one form to another and back again. eg potential energy to kinetic energy and back again reversibly and without loss in a vacuum. But that heads towards a theory of space, something that modern physics seems to have given up on.

"If only we could get Maxwell's equations into a 3D electromagnetic format then this would become clear"


Maxwell's equations are already in a 3-D format.

"WMAP results are the positive experimental proof that there are massless forces in the universe other than gravity."


I don't understand, are you referring to evidence for dark matter?

James Arathoon




-------------------------
James Arathoon
 09 October 2013 06:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

James,

you really are a glutton for punishment. Your addiction to Theory-speak would be comical were you not so obviously sincere.

Let me give you a couple of points on which to blunt your teeth:

(a)... The observed red shift in light received from distant bodies is attributed to a Doppler effect as the universe expands? This comes in two flavours - which do treasure the most?

(b)...the Doppler effect was described with reference to sound waves as they proPpagate using the air as a medium. It is not gEenerally realised that two different effects are in action caused by (i) motion of the sound-source relative to the medium, which changes any pressure pattern laid down in a medium and (ii) motion of an observer relative to the medium which affects the interpretation of any pressure- pattern.
QUESTION: ... to which of these physically-different effects would you apply to the red-shifting of e-m radiations?

(c )... Have you noticed that the Ffull spectrum of white light, including the several series such as the Balmer series, Ryder series and others, very closely resembles that of a frequency-modulated E-M radiation in which the modulation index has an appreciable value? This must surely implies that any mathematical process applied to e-m radiations must be based on elliptic forms rather than on circular. Please say which of these manipulations Maxwell used in deriving his prognostications.

Ken Green
 14 October 2013 12:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BobSBanks

Posts: 3
Joined: 15 June 2009

I have nothing to contribute to this debate as it is well beyond my ken but I want to express my thanks to all the contributors, whatever their stance, for what has been an intriguing debate to read..and to attempt to understand.

Thanks
Bob
 14 October 2013 02:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Dear Bob,

That may yet prove to be the most intelligent post to date?

Allow me in my turn to express appreciation of your trouble to make that last post.

Ken Green
 14 October 2013 10:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: kengreen
"you really are a glutton for punishment. "


Perhaps, perhaps not. I seem to get the impression that you get wounded, and retire hurt, more often from these verbal jousts than I do.


"Your addiction to Theory-speak would be comical were you not so obviously sincere."


Theories are needed to be able to interpret what we observe and measure. As has been shown throughout the history of science and engineering the interpretation of experiment results can change with time. As to whether I am addicted to one particular theoretical framework I don't know; I was under the impression that I am less addicted than most, but that may be a delusion on my part.

I haven't found a way to talk about, observe and experiment on the world in a way that is completely independent of theory. I am not aware of anyone who has. Until I get the chance to evaluate evidence of your new model for discourse perhaps as presented in your book, I will continue with my theory-speak as you call it. It's all I have since I don't claim that reasoning via induction, from the particular to the general, is a reliable and solid foundation for all knowledge.


"(a)... The observed red shift in light received from distant bodies is attributed to a Doppler effect as the universe expands? This comes in two flavours - which do treasure the most?"


I have heard of flavours referred to in particle physics speak, but not sure what you are referring to here...



(b)...the Doppler effect was described with reference to sound waves as they proPpagate using the air as a medium. It is not gEenerally realised that two different effects are in action caused by (i) motion of the sound-source relative to the medium, which changes any pressure pattern laid down in a medium and (ii) motion of an observer relative to the medium which affects the interpretation of any pressure- pattern.


As far as I am aware you can't measure source effects independent of receiver effects (its the relative velocity that is measured), although in many cases it is possible to disentangle source and receiver effects due to asymmetries in the physical problem.

In regard to an expanding universe one simple 'theoretical' assumption is that the universe is expanding away from us in the same way in all directions. This gives an isotropic and uniform red shift on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in every direction that we we look. The motion of our planet, the sun, our galaxy and galaxy cluster show up as dipole type distributions on this field, with components which change on various timescales; for example changes associated with the orbit of the earth around the sun produce changes on the timescale of a year.


"QUESTION: ... to which of these physically-different effects would you apply to the red-shifting of e-m radiations?"


There is active source Doppler shift and reflective Doppler Radar techniques. In terms of the reflective Doppler radar, I am not entirely sure if the Doppler shift is due to a passive reflection as electromagnetic theory might describe, or as a result of an absorption and re-emission phenomenon. Perhaps you can enlighten me.


"(c )... Have you noticed that the Ffull spectrum of white light, including the several series such as the Balmer series, Ryder series and others, very closely resembles that of a frequency-modulated E-M radiation in which the modulation index has an appreciable value? This must surely implies that any mathematical process applied to e-m radiations must be based on elliptic forms rather than on circular. Please say which of these manipulations Maxwell used in deriving his prognostications."


As you will know from your history Maxwell wrote virtually nothing on the topic of electromagnetic radiation, after establishing his famous wave equation. Electromagnetic reflection and refraction theory was established by Fitzgerald, and the theoretical interpretation of spectra did not really progress until the work of Ritz, and then Bohr.
I won't comment on your frequency-modulated E-M radiation until I have seen them further developed or dismissed as an outrage in your book.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 14 October 2013 11:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

James,

I can't imagine why you think I get wounded? We're talking about matters of opinion rather than of fact?

Is there not some confusion on your part between the definition of a theory and of a hypothesis? On the whole I think you'll find very little about either in my book; rather is my interest in highlighting some of the absurdities which our men of science (women also, if you prefer it) would rather did not exist and are best swept under somebody else's carpet.

If you will forgive me, you have given an excellent example; the Doppler effect is related to propagation via a medium while e-m radiation is not connected in any way with a medium? Apart from that I have never yet seen any textbook or other even mention the fact that there are two possible modes for a Doppler effect caused by the differEent manner of interaction between source and medium, and between medium and Observer - I simply claim that to attribute an observed red-shift in light to any kind of Doppler effect is a long way from being reasonable?


this has nothing whatever to do with measurement techniques; it is no more than a mind game.

As a radio engineer I most certainly consider reflection to be a special case of absorption and re-radiation. That statement reminds me of a demonstration of totally closed mind by a senior chemist who, on camera, stated his absolute disbelief in any phenomena of re-radiation?

my comments on the wideband spectrum of white light and its close similarity to a frequency-modulated carrier with a modulation index around 6 is just that - it is an undisputable fact which suggests that our passive acceptance that the fundamental light radiation has a sinusoidal form. It just so happens that my investigation into the proposals put forward at the beginning of my book suggests that the waveform is based on an elliptical action rather than a circular action.

In fact, I don't put forward my work as a replacement for classical physics; in many ways the two ideas support each other. I am very interested to see the impact it may have on thinking Minds.

By Tthe way, if you are aware of any other program which can type out my words without pretending that it knows English better thaNn do I then I will be pleased to give it a try.

Ken Green
 30 October 2013 10:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Hi Ken and James
Have just been looking at thenakedscientist cosmology forum board and there are several questions there that require a new approach to physics to be considered. If you look at "What are evanescent waves?" and more recently " Is a photon a monopole?"
on http://www.thenakedscientists..../index.php?board=12.0
The need for new physics now looks to be imminent and this will certainly affect the research using Tokamacs?
CliveS
 30 October 2013 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Clive,

Many thanks for those words of support irrespective of your intention as such.

I have never heard of evanescent waves (and neither has my faithless Dragon) but I can offer a realistic answer to the question "is a photon a monopole?"

First question to be answered is exactly what constitutes a monopole - surely it is a self-contradictory term? The answer that arises from my version (Khgsics) is that photons are second cousins to the ubiquitous "pie-in-the-sky"!

I think one of the major changes that will be effected by Khgsics is its abolition of dark matter which it does by casting nasturtiums at Einstein's famous equation.

I do believe that my daughter is nearing the completion of her editing of the chaos in my notes; I was in the act of reorganising when a heart attack put an end to my activities. Today, after seventeen years, the task has proved too much for me and but for Sue's determination, Khgsics would never have seen the light of day.

Ken Green
 31 October 2013 07:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

sorry folks,

My activities on this thread was thwarted by a busy-body virus. I got rid of it but it seems to have taken the thread also from this point on (30 October ,01.24 PM)

Any coders out there likely to overhaul IT in the light of Khgsics? :-)

Ken Green
IET » Energy » New Physics

<< 1 2 3 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.