On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:05:33 -0600, "Steve Bell"
wrote:
"Surfer" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer wrote:
Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?
None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers
I don't believe it:
-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas
I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.
Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:
A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027
Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071
That seems very powerful to me.
This an extremely interesting theory. I know fractal theory is related to
chaos theory. I wonder if this is another way to introduce chaos theory into
GR.
Also if motion in an n-body mass-based gravitational field is
deterministically chaotic, then probably motion in an n-body charged-based
electromagnetic field is also deterministically chaotic, an idea that I
think could eventually explain the stochasticism of QM. The motion of
particles like an electron would simply appear stochastic while the physical
truth is chaotic determinism. If this is true, I would have to call
"explaining the stochasticism of QM" as actually a complete break with QM
itself, though. In a certain sense, QM could be called a "special case" of
this theory, but I would call anything that shows the fundamental tenet of
QM, i.e., stochasticism, is actually chaotic nonlinear dynamics, and hence
fundamentally deterministic, a complete break with QM.
I think I agree. QM in principle allows free will. Although fractal
space-time may allow derivation of QM, in principle it suggests that
everything is preordained. So far as physics is concerned the
difference may be moot, but philosophers who are attached to the
concept of free will may prefer a different theory.
However, Scale Relativity does not explain where space-time comes
from. For that we need a pregeometric theory.
It is difficult to me to understand the question "where does space-time come
from."
Nottale discusses space-time as if it is an entity with a physical
existence, so in that context I think it is valid to ask questions
such as, "How did this entity get created in the first place?", "How
did it get its characteristics?"
This where Process Physics first attracted my interest. Process
Physics predicts the generation of a dynamical 3-space with
topological defects. This gives space and matter in an expanding
universe.
The topological defects are sinks for 3-space, so 3-space flows into
matter. The geometry of a radially inward flow causes the acceleration
of the flow to be described by an inverse square law. So the
acceleration matches the acceleration we know as gravity.
Outside matter, the acceleration is related to flow velocity by
g = del v/del t + (v.nabla) v
This allows a constant acceleration field to be produced by a time
varying velocity field.
In a GR gravitational field, what an acceleration is at a point in the field
is directly dependent on the velocity associated with that point. In GR, an
acceleration magnitude is derived as a function of a velocity magnitude, as
expressed in the geodesic equation. For a Schwarzschild field you can see
this in a paper I published at: http://sb635.mystarband.net/cip.htm. If by a
time varying velocity field you mean the velocity at some point in space is
changing with time, I can't see how the acceleration would remain constant
at that point. There may be special cases where that's so, but generally
it's difficult for me to think so.
This idea is counter-intuitive. But if you look at the above
expression for g, you can see that a local acceleration caused by a
change of v with time can be cancelled by an equal and opposite
acceleration caused by a change in the spatial distribution of v.
So in theory the velocity field can change with time while still
continuing to provide a locally constant acceleration field.
More specifically, it appears the above has wave solutions with waves
upon waves, thus giving a general solution a fractal structure.
So Process Physics predicts a dynamical 3-space, flowing in such a way
that the velocity field has a fractal wave structure.
And hence the acceleration field is also fractal. Interesting.
I am not sure of that as the velocity field appears able to vary
without causing the acceleration field to vary. In the solar system
Newton's inverse square law generally seems to hold quite accurately
but there are also unexplained gravitational anomalies. Eg the Allias
effect during eclipses, borehole g anomalies and inconsistencies in
experimental determinations of G.
Now if one converted this to a space-time representation, wouldn't one
end up with something very similar to the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity?
Yes, per my above comment, but my second above statement shows some
potential problems, to me anyway.
If the similarity is sufficiently close, then Process Physics may
provide a theoretical basis for the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity.
Yes, but see above.
There is also a relation between Process Physics and MOND. Both can
account for galaxy rotation rates without the need for dark matter.
However, whereas MOND offers empirical formulae that seem fairly easy
to use, Process Physics requires flow equations to be solved using
numerical methods. So astronomers will probably prefer to continue to
use MOND. However, it may turn out that Process Physics is the
underlying theory that also explains why MOND works.
To me, this idea is much better than MOND.
I should mention that Scale relativity has also been able to account
for galaxy rotation curves.
The above relationships are my own ideas. I have not seen MOND or
Scale Relativity mentioned in any Process Physics papers.
Go for it, sir, continue the development, this to me shows great promise.
Perhaps the replacement for fundamentally stochastic QM.
Thanks for your encouragement :-)
From time to time I have mentioned Scale Relativity. However Process
Physics is being more eventful.
Pardon the question, but what do you mean by "more eventful"?
Initially it seemed a speculative theory, but then some discoveries
were made that seem to me to be notable events. Eg the earlier
mentioned:
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...hill_flyby.pdf
There is currently no other theory that resolves these anomalies.
Not everyone here is mainstream. I also like to communicating with
non-mainstream subscribers.
I certainly am glad I read your contributions to this thread.
I take constructive criticism seriously, but it has not yet revealed a
fatal flaw in Process Physics. Consider the recent criticism of the
Miller data.
I don't know any of your other ideas, but these are very interesting indeed.
I am glad you contributed to this thread.
Because Process Physics predicts a fractal velocity field for
dynamical 3-space, the fluctuations in the Miller data can be
attributed to fractal fluctuations in that field.
If one does that, then the way Miller analysed his data simply gives
you a fluctuating velocity vector just as was predicted by theory.
Eg Fig 4 in
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...hill_flyby.pdf
Since I am a die-hard relativistic, it is hard for me to accept that the
speed of light is varying. But I'm sure you've heard that before.
I feel the title is a little misleading. From the papers I have looked
at "Measured light speed ansisotropy" does not refer to any change in
the directly measured speed of light in vacuum. (That should always be
c.) What it refers to is the measurement of a light speed anisotropy
in a medium, caused by motion of the medium through 3-space.
So I think SR can be made compatible with this by adopting a
Lorentzian interpretation.
Cheers,
Surfer
shows the component in the plane of a ground level interferometer
fluctuating in magnitude from 150 km/s to 580 km/s.
These large fluctuations are disconcerting at first sight, but they
are probably due to the interaction between the interstella flow and
the local flow into the earth that occurs at ground level.
But in spite of such fluctuations, it was possible to calculate, from
the ground based observations, an overall average flow of about 415
km/s
That result was first provided (so far as I can tell) in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196
Now, nearly five years later, it turns out that light speed anisotropy
due to velocities in the range 420-450 km/s can completely account for
the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies.
This is in remarkable concordance with the earlier calculated average
velocity at ground level. But another implication of the concordance
is that there is less fluctuation of velocity away from earth, than
there is at ground level.
That is also something else we would expect from the theory.
It would seem to me, that if gravity is fractal, maybe the "fractilization
effects" are stronger the stronger the gravitational field where the
nonlinear dynamics are stronger, where the chaos is stronger. Maybe far away
from the sun, the fractilization effects are weaker, causing the resultant
"non-washed out" accelerations out there to better manifest themselves on
the spacecraft motion as a stronger than expected acceleration towards the
sun.