dennislmay

Articles from 2008?

http://mises.org/daily/4977 A very well written article - thanks to Dan Ust for the heads up. Dennis

Yes, I'm aware of Lorentz's idea and think he was on the right track. It's a shame he let himself be dissuaded from his approach. But what I don't understand his how Bob can be as obtuse as he is. Shayne What happened to Lorentz also happened to de Broglie and J. J. Thomson when they did not come up with immediate sweeping solutions to difficult problems they allowed themselves to be talked out of or pushed out of the research they were doing by the consensus mob. Indeed. So what are your ideas on this? Have you written them down? How would you answer my question? Would you refer to Lorentz, or do you have further thoughts? Shayne The Lorentz answer is the correct answer to your question. When I took Special Relativity both approaches were taught which is not generally the case. My further thoughts mostly include my model of the aether which I explain in some detail in my book about it. If you like a free copy email me at dennislmay@yahoo.com with your address. I sent out one copy to an Objectivist Living member today. The book is the 2nd edition which doesn't include updated work for the last 3 years - hard to tell when I will finish the 3rd edition but the 2nd edition get you most of the flavor. The book is more or less a set of outlines of the theory. A complete work would be a tome requiring me to do nothing else for several years.

Yes, I'm aware of Lorentz's idea and think he was on the right track. It's a shame he let himself be dissuaded from his approach. But what I don't understand his how Bob can be as obtuse as he is. Shayne What happened to Lorentz also happened to de Broglie and J. J. Thomson when they did not come up with immediate sweeping solutions to difficult problems they allowed themselves to be talked out of or pushed out of the research they were doing by the consensus mob.

Doesn't answer my question. I'm asking a simple question here. I didn't say there was a paradox, I didn't say that something is contradictory, I said it was seemingly causeless. Let me give you an example. If someone asks why the sun is hot, then I can easily refer to the cause: hydrogen fusion caused by gravity. And if these aren't clear I can expand further. Very simple. I'm asking you an equally simple question. I'm asking what causes the "time" to slow down. I am not disagreeing with it, I'm not saying it's paradoxical, I'm simply asking why it happens, and I expect the "why" to refer to something physical, not a mathematical abstraction. Shayne A physical explanation is what Lorentz ether theory gives - not Special Relativity - though they share the same math.

Dennis, Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far ~ Shane Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory. In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see. If you don't take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form. Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe. In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large. This sounds somewhat like Learner's theory. Ba'al Chatzaf Learner's book estimated 1 trillion years for structures observed back then. Since that time much larger structures have been identified and I've not heard updated numbers - I would suspect you can multiply 1 trillion years by 10 now.

Dennis, Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far ~ Shane Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory. In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see. If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form. Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe. In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

Doesn't answer the question. This is a silly, cartoonish, child-like view of what the ether would be, like envisioning little balls orbiting around others as a model for an atom. Shayne Agreed - there have been many different kinds of aether theories. Picking one popular example to white-wash all theories does nothing to advance the discussion.

In his tome "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity" Sir Edmund T. Whittaker explains that modern physics assigns all kinds of characteristics, forces, carriers of force, and propererties to "empty" space - they are still aether theories only without the name aether attached. In "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity" Sir Edmund T. Whittaker traces the history of the various aether concepts reaching from the Greeks, though gravitational theory in the 1700’s-early 1900’s, to early theories concerning light, to classical E&M theory, to theories of quantum mechanics to modern quantum theory and modern gravitational theory. All of these are aether theories in that they ascribe properties and/or particles to exist in space such that it is not “empty” but has properties which interact with matter and/or energy or allow the interaction between separated matter and/or energy. Some of this discussion is a matter of semantics – part is a matter of interpreting history – and part is a decision by the dominant educational leaders of the time to break with tradition in the historical use of language and to signify a break with traditional concepts of causality and a particular aether theory which had come into disfavor within dominant circles. Control of the language of discussion to deride a particular description enforces conformity and tends to erase history as students see what has become a derisive term and blank out further investigation of a tainted or taboo topic which has been deemed by dominant researchers as having been settled. Einstein discussed how in truly empty space without properties a bucket full of water rotating would have no referent to be able to determine it is rotating thus the water could not flow up the sides. Call it aether or not all of modern physics is yet another aether theory by whatever name they choose to call it.

In his tome "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity" Sir Edmund T. Whittaker explains that modern physics assigns all kinds of characteristics, forces, carriers of force, and propererties to "empty" space - they are still aether theories only without the name aether attached.

The Big Bang Theory has no center – neither does my theory. Red dwarf stars would have no relationship to the existence of a hypothetical center or centers to the universe. I mentioned red dwarf stars because though the Big Bang Theory has expected specific chemical signatures no first generation red dwarf star has been found though they should be super abundant and many would still be in their youth. I apologize for asking this question, since I would know the answer if I actually kept up with the updated literature in astronomy/cosmology. According to the best estimate of the "official" Big Bang Theory, the BBT happened about 13.7 billion years ago, corresponding to the hypothesized age of our universe. So if you wanted to find a first generation star, you would have to locate a star that is about 13.7 billion light years away. Red dwarf stars have a very low luminousity even compared with our sun. Is it actually possible to detect a low luminousity red dwarf star that is over 13 billion light years away, in order to be able to analyze its chemical composition? I would think that it would be rather difficult to even do this to a red dwarf star in the Andromeda galaxy, let alone a star that is 13 billion light years away. Martin There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

The Big Bang Theory has no center – neither does my theory. Red dwarf stars would have no relationship to the existence of a hypothetical center or centers to the universe. I mentioned red dwarf stars because though the Big Bang Theory has expected specific chemical signatures no first generation red dwarf star has been found though they should be super abundant and many would still be in their youth.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. In your previous post, you said that, according to your model, the speed of light itself was slower in the past than it is now. This is different than saying that the speed of the passage of time has changed. If the speed of light itself keeps getting slower as we go back in time, then there's a problem, because there is a limit to how slow the speed of light can be -- 0. So, in other words, if the speed of light in our present universe is =~ 186,000 miles/sec, and it was slower than this one billion years ago, and presumably still slower 100 billion years ago, eventually you reach the point where the speed of light is 0, or you approach some asymptotic limit. Martin What is important is the relative speed of light where you are now and what the speed of light was in the past. We are dealing with real numbers and their relative differences – you cannot view the system from the outside. You can maintain the identical appearance of features as long as the relationships remain the same no matter how large or how small the numbers. In calculus you would integrate to the limit in one fell swoop as viewed from the outside. Viewed internally using ratios that limit large or small is never reached.

In short a Steady State theory which was shot to smithereens by the discovery of CMBR in 1965. Ba'al Chatzaf The CMBR provides no support for the Big Bang Theory because it fails several crucial tests for a radiation from a source at the beginning of a Big Bang age: It fails to lens as a distant source should: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bigbang-05b.html http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276 It fails to shadow as it should and the shadows fill in with distance: http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=480 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160 It has features that cannot come from a simple Big Bang but could come from local sources: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html# There are dozens of other observations that do not support the CMBR as the remnants of a Big Bang expansion though it continues to be held up as proof. The “proof” requires the introduction of Dark Energy and spontaneous inflation that then spontaneously stops at the right moment for the numbers to remotely appear to work.

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

“What does "a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time" mean?” It means that say one billion years ago the speed of light throughout the observable universe was less than it is now so we observe events from one billion years ago as red-shifted and moving more slowly. This is equivalent to what you would expect to see if the universe were expanding. “What is the evidence for it and what would be the cause of it?” The apparent geometrical size and brightness of galaxies does not match the distance they should be at based on the expanding universe model and the red-shift they display. Instead their size and brightness indicates red-shift and time dilation without the universe expanding. When I was developing my non-linear QM theory I discovered in 1990 that the ether in space and traveling light are part of a thermodynamic system in which changes to the ether affects the velocity of light. The ether is a supraluminal system so when changes occur they happen quickly over vast regions. Feedback between the ether and matter/energy causes the speed of light to gradually increase over time.

Compartmentalizing the successes of individual theories should not insulate them from criticism when application in a composite concept such as the “Big Bang Theory” does not produce good results. General Relativity is unable to correctly predict the velocity profiles of galaxies. The solution was to create Dark Matter to fix theory to observation. Now comes the observation that galaxies that look alike have the same velocity profiles and are thus required to have identical Dark Matter distributions: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts This kind of required uniformity cannot be justified. If General Relativity on the galactic scale is in doubt the entire Big Bang physics is in doubt. A failure of General Relativity would seem to bring with it the possibility of a failure in Special Relativity – a non-linear effect which in turn brings up the question of LET and non-linear QM.

"You are a refreshing difference. Little did I dream that I would corresponding with an aetherist. That is almost as surprising as meeting up with a flat-earther or a hollow-earther in this day and age." I’m as refreshing as a flat-earther who lives in the hollow-earth. “In the mean time quantum electrodynamics which is based on Einstein's special theory of relativity (in part) still produces dazzling correct predictions.” Still based on SR and QM that cannot be mathematically distinguished from LET or other QM models in their predictions. “And particle accelerators operate every day as advertised again and again corroborating Einstein's theory.” Again: http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory "Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory “Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation "In 1904 J. J. Thomson[36] considered a Le Sage-type model in which the primary ultramundane flux consisted of a hypothetical form of radiation much more penetrating even than x-rays. He argued that Maxwell's heat problem might be avoided by assuming that the absorbed energy is not be converted into heat, but re-radiated in a still more penetrating form." The thermodynamics of re-radiating models is the work that was never done - hence the entire approach was abandoned based on doing half the minimum required research. There is no experiment proof that SR has any superior claim to the LET. Certain ether models are known to have contained errors – there is no experimental evidence to exclude all ether theories and very little theoretical work has been done beyond that known to have been incomplete and misleading.

As soon as any non-linear effect of any kind is experimentally proved the "Standard Model of Particles of Fields" will not be able to adapt – neither will Special Relativity. The question of interpretation and adaptability will then become very important. The non-linear deBB approach is already a known approach to this problem and Special Relativity will need to be replaced with something like Lorentzian ether theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory My entire alternative approach to physics and cosmology is to use the assumption of non-linear QM to explain numerous observations. Definitive experimental proof of a non-linear QM effect has yet to be found though I believe cosmology gives clear indications that such effects exist. I have done some minor experimentation to provide such proof but the equipment required to go much further is financially on the order of buying a nice house plus having the right kind of lab infrastructure to put it in. As such it is a slow process.

There is no falsification at this point - there is more than one approach to get the same results and more than one interpretation. Dirac supported the vector approach which was later shown to produce the same predictions as many other mathematical approaches - some of which have very different interpretations. Some believe the success of the “Standard Model of Particles and Fields” excludes alternative interpretations – Bell showed is not true at all. Its success is also success for all mathematically equivalent theories regardless of interpretation.

The interpretations are fundamental to understanding, using and being able to expand quantum mechanics. An incorrect view of hidden variables generated by John von Neumann was propagated as fact from 1932 until disproven by J.S. Bell in 1964. This did not end the issue as the results of the mistake of von Neumann are erroneously reported as fact to this day. J.S. Bell discussed the issue of the result of his work being misinterpreted and misrepresented in his book “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics”. Different interpretations take you along very different mathematically equivalent paths – though some methods are easier to apply than others and some interpretations have been worked on more than others building a larger mathematical tool-chest. The wave formulation, the matrix mechanics formulation, the vector formulation, the Bohmian, approach and some others all produce the same results and are explained by Bell. Some erroneously claim their interpretation [and supporting math] is the only one producing the correct results – they are wrong and have been known to be wrong since 1964.

My alternative cosmology is a form of steady-state cosmology. It is a different model than Hoyle's and does not suffer the same problems. The failure of one model does not imply a blanket failure of all theories with some features in common. Quantum mechanics is not being thrown out - deBB QM is a different interpretation producing the same results as conventional QM. My non-linear offshoot of deBB QM does have some different predictions in some areas as all non-linear QM must. There are many competing models for QM producing accurate results within certain ranges of assumptions and measurements. Questioning the foundations of QM is not an all or nothing proposition.

It is my view that the theory of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok suffers from most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory – thus I find it of no interest. Some further history of my work: My undergraduate thesis was an early version of a portion of this work and I enjoyed support in that effort. I worked on my masters thesis and some PhD work in the same area of research but did not enjoy support in that effort. I sought the advice from “Foundations of Physics” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics in that effort and they directed me to J.P. Vigier for advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Vigier Vigier was there at the beginning of deBB mechanics and directed me to people doing similar work in computer modeling. This was 1990-1991 - prior to the work of Gregory S. Duane in 2001 which I assumed correct but had no proof of at the time. So the foundation of my work sat in limbo from 1990-2001. Sometime after the work of Duane I once again contacted “Foundations of Physics” in regard to correcting a series of papers containing an obvious thermodynamic error which I dealt with as a minor side effect in my work from 1990. I found that moneyed interests [DOE funding to the University of California – San Diego] outweighs basic physics considerations and I fought them for two years without being allowed to publish my point of view until they had someone publish a correction - in convoluted form - disguising the nature of the obvious error in what they had done. By this time I was very disgusted with “Foundations of Physics” and became even more so after Gerard 't Hooft became the editor-in-chief in 2007. In the time frame of 1990-1991 I attempted to publish my early work in most all the physics journals accepting work in alternative QM and found none as welcoming as “Foundations of Physics”. I self published an early version of the work at that time. After the fiasco of attempting to deal with “Foundations of Physics” I started the yahoo group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/ to discuss my work and get valuable input from others with similar interests in alternative physics and cosmology. I have self published two editions [still working on 3rd] outlining my work. I have free copies of the 2nd edition available for those interested – just email me at dennislmay@yahoo.com with your address and I will send you a copy. The experience of 2 years of arguing on two occasions to get less than 1% of my work understood in a physics journal has left me working as a one man band except for the online support and help I have received over the years. I have contacted a half dozen or so prominent researchers about my CMBR work with no response. Over the years I have received support from a dozen or so university physics professors around the world but entire topic of deBB QM and non-linear QM generally has been languishing in a dying exponential manner. So I remain the sole advocate for all intents and purposes.

I have read of their work and it seems to contain most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory.