Dear Reader,
I am making this discussion available for comments from our readers...... Please
use Guestbook if you want to share your opinion on
technical or more general issues... Phipps'
paper dealing with "corrected" Maxwell equations
is available in pdf form at Jack Sarfatti
site.
Thank you.
*******************************************************************
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: "Thomas E Phipps, Jr"
Subject: Heretical Verities
Copies to: sarfatti
Date sent: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:12:36 -0400
Dear Dr Phipps,
I am studying your book. I spotted several problems that
are insufficiently explained.
Would you be so kind as to assist me in overcoming
these difficulties?
ark
*******************************************************************
Date sent: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:01:41 -0500
To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
From: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Dear Arkadiusz,
> I am studying your book. I spotted several problems that
> are insufficiently explained.
> Would you be so kind as to assist me in overcoming
> these difficulties?
"Insufficiently explained" is probably a euphemism for wrong. Sure,
I'll
do what I can, but consider e-mail a poor way to get at scientific
truth.
Best, Tom.
*******************************************************************
Date sent: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 23:12:20 -0500
To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
From: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Dear AJ,
> Why would e-mail be a poor way? In old good times people were
> writing letters. We have today correspondence between Einstein and
> Bohr etc, and we enjoy reading it. E-mail exchanges will not last
> that long (except perhaps in the archives of NSA), that is true, but
> still it serves well when people are far away and can not talk
> directly.
I still live in old times, but you are right, one must move with the
times.
I do not think of e-mail science as real science, for the same reason
I
do not think of 10-sec. chess as real chess. But each to his own taste.
> Here is my problem. On page 66 you start to describe V^\star
> transport synchronization method. That is we want to
> synchronize clocks in a given inertial reference system.
> That is these clocks are there but not synchronized at all.
> They are either showing completely randomly related times
> or are pseudosynchronized by some other nonscientific
> method. Now you say "At the coordinate origin of S let a master clock C
> be placed in localized back-and forth (oscillatory) motion." What do you
> mean? You mean the clock oscillates somehow around the origin. That
> is it goes somehow one way or the other way (are we in one
> dimension or in three dimensions?), but comes back once in a while
> to the origin. Do you want it to come back to the origin every 1 minute
> of its time? Do you want it to be coming back to the origin regularly?
> How regularly? What is exactly your prescription? Then you say
> "at a rms proper speed V". What do you mean by that? Yes, the
> clock measures its proper speed, it is variable, and you want
> square root of its integral over the period be equal V?
Well, let's simplify by considering a constant speed v in some given
inertial system S. Forget about rms speed -- it's not significant. The
idea is that the master clock is in a state of motion characterized by
speed of magnitude v. But to keep it in the vicinity of its starting
point
or "origin," it repeatedly reverses its course, being (in the idealized
case) momentarily infinitely accelerated. I do not care whether it goes
in
a small circle around the origin or whether it "oscillates" back and
forth,
or what. The only requirement is that at any time it is going at speed
v
in S. Now remember my basic postulated kinematic invariants, spacelike:
Euclidean length; timelike: proper time interval along a particle
trajectory. According to the latter postulate, clock rate is controlled
by
the gamma factor of proper time. This means square root of (1-v^2/c^2).
So, all clocks having the same v^2/c^2, which is to say the same
magnitude
of speed v in an inertial system, will run at the SAME RATE. This is
completely without regard to direction of motion. Only speed magnitude
matters. All clocks moving at the same speed magnitude in a given
inertial
system will run at the same rate. That is the sole point of
my"construction." The master clock at or "near" the origin for all time
will run at the same rate as other similarly built clocks that move also
at
speed v to other places in the system S. This assurance of identity of
running rate solves the "clock transport" problem. No longer must the
transported clocks move at an "infinitely slow" speed. They can move at
any chosen speed v (less than c). So, when a space-filling clock set is
established by moving all clocks at speed v, while being assured by
identity of their gamma factors that they run continually at the same
rate,
one can then stop them all at a given common reading on their faces,
corresponding to equal elapsed proper times. Then they all share common
speed v = 0 in S and thus continue to run at equal rates (differing from
their previous rates). So, they are all phase synchronized and running
at
the same rate and at rest in S. This defines distant simultaneity, and
it
must be agreed on by all observers (not only inertial ones and not only
those in S) because only proper time has featured in the operational
procedure of synchronization, and proper time is by hypothesis an
invariant.
> Now you say
> let the traveling clock C' (also oscillating or at rest with respect
> to the second system?) be brought into a near coincidence ...
> Why "near-coincidence" rather than coincidence?
All right, coincidence -- if you can tolerate two objects occupying the
same space at the same time.
> If it must
> necessarily be near, then how near? And for how long?
For as near and as long as it takes to do what I say, namely,
synchronize
the two clocks -- get the newcomer in phase step with the master clock,
so
they both show the same "time." Einstein's clock transport method of
clock
synchronization calls for the same questions.
> For
> how long as measured by which clock? So that they both
> oscillate together .. How can they oscillate together? What
> do you mean by "together? For how long? As measure by which
> clock? Why should they oscillate together? What it does
> to them? I mean this oscillating together? Do you just
> want to have many copies of the same clock?
Yes, that is the idea -- an indefinite number of copies of identically
running phase-synchronized clocks. The identity of running rate
requires
identity of state of motion, hence the "togetherness."
Sorry I did not make this clear.
> I have
> no problem with producing 1000 copies of the same clock.
> But why should my clocks oscillate?
Because I want to move all but the master clock to other parts of space
in
order to establish a space-filling Einsteinian "clock gas." And I want
to
do it with assurance that they all run at the same rate throughout the
whole process of moving them, from start to finish, so that there is no
chance of their getting out of synch -- no instant at which there could
be
phase slippage. Maybe you can think of a better way that does not
involve
having them at all times moving at the same speed magnitude v (which
assures that the rate-controlling v^2.c^2 is the same for all). Be my
guest. Put on your thinking cap.
> Would your
> synchronization not work for V^\stat=0 ? That is when
> clocks are not oscillating?
At the conclusion of the process, when all clocks are "oscillating" at
speed v about their final points of destination, I do bring them all
(properly simultaneously) to a halt, so that thenceforth v = 0, as
explained above.
> And then at the bottom of p. 66 you have a formula
> for \gamma. But I do not know which gamma it is
> supposed to be? Some "averaged" gamma? Why
> do we need averaged gamma?
As I say, forget about rms and averaging -- just use a constant speed v,
shared by all clocks -- and remember that strictly instantaneous
accelerations do not alter that v.
> We can't use Einstein
> formula for gamma because for this we need v, and we
> do not have v because we do not have t, because t is
> what we are in the process of defining.....
You have to allow me some starting point, and the starting point I chose
was invariance of proper time interval along particle trajectory. This
includes the definition of proper time interval as given on p. 66 and
elsewhere. If you won't grant me my timelike kinematic invariant I am
stymied at the outset.
> The only thing we know from Einstein formula is
> that gamma is relevant when clocks are synchronized
> using light signals, and when velocity is measured
> with respect to Einstein synchronized reference frame.
I disagree. Light signals could be replaced by speed of rock-throwing,
provided this was the same for all rock throwers. The result is in any
one
inertial system the same as Newton's "synchronism" and the same as what
I
arrive at -- only I claim the result in my case is obviously invariant
because of my use of a kinematic invariant (proper time) throughout the
procedure. Note that proper time is what is read on a single clock --
hence is invariant among the class of all observers with eyes to see the
readout on that clock at two successive events that define the proper
time
interval. They all must unavoidably read the same numbers, unless they
have astigmatism (numerical invariance). This is the class of
generally-moving observers, not just inertial observers.
> We also know from Einstein's formula that clocks that
> travel to the same place through different histories
> show different time. It is the history of all travel that
> counts, not only its oscillation....
That's right, and the motions include arbitrary accelerations,
supposedly
not covered by special relativity ... a fact that shows proper time
invariance to be a physical fact transcending SRT. (In fact, Einstein
used
it in GRT.)
Yes, the differential of proper time is inexact, which implies
path-dependence of proper time. Nevertheless, clock rate is controlled
by
gamma factor ... and if gamma is the same for n clocks then all n run at
the same rate, regardless of the directions they are traveling in.
That's
straight Einstein, so if you disagree, you are more of a heretic than I
am.
I don't know if this clears up any of your problems or not. I think I
was
too fancy in bringing in RMS motions. In fact I may have been plain
wrong
to do that, because the averaging might be done in different ways in
different inertial systems. It's a needless complication, so forget it.
Best, Tom.
*************************************************************************
Date sent: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:17:21 -0500
To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
From: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities - Maxwell
Dear AJ,
> Being unable to understand Chapter 2 (waiting for you answer
> to my last couple of questions) I started to read Chapter 4
> "Hertzian Electromagnetism" and am getting confused even
> more. Later on I will address your discussion of "invariance"
> versus "noninvariance", but let me first try to understand
> you main idea. After Hertz you introduce into Maxwell
> equations, as NECESSARY, "detector's velocity". It is not velocity of
> which part of the detector and with respect to what, and measured
> how and by whom and by what means.
Maxwell's field quantities in vacuum certainly have to be detectable,
and
the detector has to have an identifiable state of motion, because in his
theory there is a field point (at which the field quantity is defined).
This is never emphasized, but is surely true. If the field point has a
definite state of motion, then I am surely entitled to idealize a field
detector as occupying that field point and sharing that state of motion.
I
therefore do not have to answer what part of the detector is moving with
respect to what, etc. But I think I can say what I mean by detector.
For
a Maxwellian electric field a small charged pith ball inside some
nonmetallic cage with attachments to an orthogonal triad of
accelerometers
will serve, if the pith ball is at rest at the field point. For a
Hertzian
electric field the same gizmo will serve, but now we have to specify its
state of motion (by a velocity parameter) as well as its location. For
magnetic field detection an idealized detector might be an orthogonal
triad
of short "current elements" -- but that won't work because isolated
current
elements are fictional ... might have to use small magnets, or something
else. I have not thought this through. Now, sure enough, my pith ball
is
not a mathematical point, and I can't begin to think of all the
objections
you will raise.
But that is not the
> main issue now.
>
> 1) Do you mean that there are is electromagnetic
> field in a vacuum, where there are no detectors?
When I talk about EM equations for "vacuum" I simply mean to limit my
discussion to the case where one electric and one magnetic field vector
will serve for physical description. If we bring in "media" it is
customary to use four field quantities, and I wish to avoid that
complication. But, to answer your question, it is customary among field
theorists to think that "field" exists in the absence of detectors, that
it
can carry momentum, etc. But in fact Maxwell's and Hertz's equations
whenever they use a field quantity E, say, mean E(r,t), where (r,t)
specifies the "field point." That's really all the math entitles us to
talk about. If E(r,t) is to be translated into verifiable statements
about numbers (predictions), then a numerical reading of a meter at that
field point (r,t) is implied as the physical referent of the field
quantity.
> 2) Or do you mean that there is perhaps a field, but it
> obeys no equation at all?
I hope not.
> 3) Or do you mean there is no such thing as vacuum?
> That detectors are everywhere and they do flow somehow?
> What are they?
Oh, dear!
> 4) Or, in the meantime, between writing the book and now, you
> have changed your opinion concerning interpretation of
> the "velocity" term that you are adding to Maxwell equations.
That sounds possible, but I don't know what you mean. Alternatively, I
could have forgotten what I said or thought 12-15 years ago. What are
we
talking about?
> 5) Or, in the mean time, you have changed your opinion concerning
> the necessity of changing Maxwell equations the way you proposed
> in the book?
Why do you say so? What contradiction are you implying?
> 6) If no of the above then what else?
You have me utterly at sea here. Obviously I am not able to help you
unless I grasp your problem. If there is a contradiction between "then"
and "now" in my writings, please specify.
Best, Tom.
*************************************************************************
Date sent: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:29:44 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Copies to: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Forwarded for further discussion.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> On 2 Oct 99, at 23:12, Tom Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know if this clears up any of your problems or not. I think I
> > was
> > too fancy in bringing in RMS motions. In fact I may have been plain
> > wrong
> > to do that, because the averaging might be done in different ways in
> > different inertial systems. It's a needless complication, so forget it.
> >
> > Best, Tom.
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I am still chewing on your reply concerning proper time synchronization.
> I am kind of coming to some conclusions, but I am not quite sure how to
> interpret some of your primary definitions.
>
> 1. Galilean inertial system
>
> On p. 42 bottom you define it as "any closed system in which
> Newton's mechanical equations are valid to first order in
> all velocity-dimensional parameters.
>
> I fail to understand this definition. When you say "Newton's mechanical
> equations, you mean which of them? All of them? Also those including
> motion under action of forces? But how do you know forces from Newton's
> equations alone? You do not know them. You need laws of gravity or
> laws of electromagnetism or other to calculate forces, and only then you
> can check Newton equations for bodies under action of these forces.
> Or when you wrote "Newton's equations" you really meant Newton's First
> Law and only this Law?
> Then I would tend to understand your definition. But with this definition
> Galilean inertial system is defined up to arbitrary linear transformation
and
> does not include any requirement concerning metric standards. If S,
> equipped with space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t) is a Galilean i.s., then
> S' is also Galilean inertial if and only if (x',y,'z',t') are related to (x,y,z,t)
> by an arbitrary transformation of the form:
>
> x'=a11*x+a12*y+a13*z+a14*t+ a1
> ....
> t'=a41*x+a42*y+a43*z+a44*t+a4
>
> Is that what what you mean? Then and only then Newton's first law is valid
> in S if and only if it is valid in S'.
>
> But then you have "to first order in
> all velocity-dimensional parameters.". What THAT means?
> That means you admit arbitrary transformations? How many
> "velocity-dimensional parameters" you allow for and of what form?
> What exactly do you mean: mathematically and operationally?
> I tried to figure it out but simply could not.
>
> Moreover, on p. 44 you kind of remind the above formulation:
> "... Galilean inertial system (defined above as one in which
> Newton's laws are obeyed)" but now you skip "up to first order."
> So I really do not know do you mean it or not? But you keep using
> plural "laws" rather than "law". Do you mean also
> Newton's second law? How are you gonna check it using only
> Newton's laws and knowing nothing about nature of forces
> that acts on the bodies?
>
> 2. Inertial system.
>
> On p. 44 you say:
>
> "Definition. An inertial system is any material collective all constituents
> of which continually share the same state of motion and in undergoing
> any changes of that state do so at equal proper times."
>
> I do not understand this. "State of motion" you say. With respect to what?
[Jack]
With respect to ANY other object I suppose.
>
> With respect to Galilean inertial system? What do you mean by that?
> What do you mean mathematically and operationally? Does the above
> "definition" involves setting up space and/or time coordinates? What do
> you mean by "the same state of motion?" The same velocity vector v(t)
> with respect to a given Galilean inertial system S_0 for each
> time t of S_0? Or something else? When you say "at equal
> proper times" - what do you mean by that? You mean that S_0
> is irrelevant? If so what do you mean by "the same state of motion"?
> What relation between coordinates of S and S_0 would be appropriate
> to define "an inertial system?"
>
> As I said, I am still trying to understand the message contained in
> Chapter II of your book. I have now some idea as to what you
> mean by clock synchronization using proper time. But, as you
> see from the above, I have other problems.
>
> 3. Finally let me ask this: Are we supposed to assume that there
> exists at least one frame of reference (including coordinates (x,y,z,t))
> in which
> a) Newton's first law is satisfied
> b) For some constant "c" Einstein's proper time formula relating
> coordinate time t and proper time tau is valid?
> My guess is that you will answer "yes", but I want to be sure.
>
> Best,
> ark
--
"Backed by the Supreme Authority
We command a large majority."
Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan
******************************************************************
Date sent: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:21:30 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities - Maxwell
Forwarded for discussion
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> Being unable to understand Chapter 2 (waiting for you answer
> to my last couple of questions) I started to read Chapter 4
> "Hertzian Electromagnetism" and am getting confused even
> more. Later on I will address your discussion of "invariance"
> versus "noninvariance", but let me first try to understand
> your main idea. After Hertz you introduce into Maxwell
> equations, as NECESSARY, "detector's velocity". It is not velocity of
> which part of the detector and with respect to what, and measured
> how and by whom and by what means. But that is not the
> main issue now.
[Jack]
You choose a global frame of reference. Let it be inertial (non
accelerating). We do not have any notion of curvature here so "global"
is
OK. The detector velocities of the cloud of field detectors are relative
to
that arbitrary frame. Phipps makes the further approximation that the
field
detectors are each in uniform motion though not all with the same
uniform
velocity. Therefore he gets a convective time derivative in the field
equations. If he includes the jerk in the field detector he will get a
third term. In principle he has an infinite Taylor series. These extra
terms of Phipps's covering theory seem to explain some anomalous purely
classical electrodynamic observations.
>
>
> 1) Do you mean that there are is electromagnetic
> field in a vacuum, where there are no detectors?
[Jack]
Does this have operational meaning? Not that a purely pragmatic
criterion
is enough.
>
>
> 2) Or do you mean that there is perhaps a field, but it
> obeys no equation at all?
>
> 3) Or do you mean there is no such thing as vacuum?
> That detectors are everywhere and they do flow somehow?
> What are they?
>
> 4) Or, in the meantime, between writing the book and now, you
> have changed your opinion concerning interpretation of
> the "velocity" term that you are adding to Maxwell equations?
>
> 5) Or, in the mean time, you have changed your opinion concerning
> the necessity of changing Maxwell equations the way you proposed
> in the book?
>
> 6) If no of the above then what else?
>
> Best,
>
> ark
--
"Backed by the Supreme Authority
We command a large majority."
Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan
Date sent: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:21:30 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities - Maxwell
Forwarded for discussion
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> Being unable to understand Chapter 2 (waiting for you answer
> to my last couple of questions) I started to read Chapter 4
> "Hertzian Electromagnetism" and am getting confused even
> more. Later on I will address your discussion of "invariance"
> versus "noninvariance", but let me first try to understand
> your main idea. After Hertz you introduce into Maxwell
> equations, as NECESSARY, "detector's velocity". It is not velocity of
> which part of the detector and with respect to what, and measured
> how and by whom and by what means. But that is not the
> main issue now.
[Jack]
You choose a global frame of reference. Let it be inertial (non
accelerating). We do not have any notion of curvature here so "global"
is
OK. The detector velocities of the cloud of field detectors are relative
to
that arbitrary frame. Phipps makes the further approximation that the
field
detectors are each in uniform motion though not all with the same
uniform
velocity. Therefore he gets a convective time derivative in the field
equations. If he includes the jerk in the field detector he will get a
third term. In principle he has an infinite Taylor series. These extra
terms of Phipps's covering theory seem to explain some anomalous purely
classical electrodynamic observations.
>
>
> 1) Do you mean that there are is electromagnetic
> field in a vacuum, where there are no detectors?
[Jack]
Does this have operational meaning? Not that a purely pragmatic
criterion
is enough.
>
>
> 2) Or do you mean that there is perhaps a field, but it
> obeys no equation at all?
>
> 3) Or do you mean there is no such thing as vacuum?
> That detectors are everywhere and they do flow somehow?
> What are they?
>
> 4) Or, in the meantime, between writing the book and now, you
> have changed your opinion concerning interpretation of
> the "velocity" term that you are adding to Maxwell equations?
>
> 5) Or, in the mean time, you have changed your opinion concerning
> the necessity of changing Maxwell equations the way you proposed
> in the book?
>
> 6) If no of the above then what else?
>
> Best,
>
> ark
--
"Backed by the Supreme Authority
We command a large majority."
Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan
http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/
********************************************************************
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Copies to: Jack Sarfatti
Date sent: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:19:44 -0400
On 10 Oct 99, at 16:17, Tom Phipps wrote:
> Dear AJ,
>
> > 1. Galilean inertial system
> >
> > On p. 42 bottom you define it as "any closed system in which
> > Newton's mechanical equations are valid to first order in
> > all velocity-dimensional parameters.
> >
> > I fail to understand this definition.
>
> It is essentially the one used by Einstein in 1905. I should have
> specified Newton's laws in their simplest form -- meaning of course without
> centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, etc.
In "Relativity - the Special and General Theory" Einstein wrote
"A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the
law
of inertia holds relative to it is called a 'Galilean system of
coordinates".
That was his original definition. Only Newton's first law is being used in
the definition. Which makes sense. Later on, true, he messes up
with Newton's other laws, what makes no sense, yet he starts with
what makes sense. Pauli, whom apparently you like, corrects this
Einstein's inconsequences and declares quite precisely: "There exists
a triple infinite set of reference frames moving rectilinearly and
uniformly
relative to one another, in which the phenomena occur in an identical
manner. We shall follow Einstein in calling them 'Galilean reference
systems' - so named because the Galilean law of inertia them."
No mention of requirement of Newton's other laws - because
Newton other laws cannot be tested without hypotheses on
the origin of forces!!!
> When you say "Newton's mechanical
> > equations, you mean which of them? All of them? Also those including
> > motion under action of forces?
>
> Yes. Hell, you know what a Galilean inertial system is. That's what I
> mean. If I said it wrong, I'm a dope. Your point is well taken.
I am simply trying to follow your reasoning, believing that when you say
something, you mean it.
> But how do you know forces from Newton's
> > equations alone? You do not know them. You need laws of gravity or
> > laws of electromagnetism or other to calculate forces, and only then you
> > can check Newton equations for bodies under action of these forces.
> > Or when you wrote "Newton's equations" you really meant Newton's First
> > Law and only this Law?
>
> I meant Newton's laws of motion, which are three in number. They suffice
> to ensure conservation of energy and momentum, etc., always in an INERTIAL
> SYSTEM -- what Newton defined as "God's sensorium," but we don't do it that
> way any more. Let's not get into the old argument about the tautology
> involved to using force to define inertial system and inertial system to
> define force. We'll be here all day.
> Mach had the only respectable way to deal with that -- and his work is
> speculative.
There is no tautology in Einstein's and Pauli's definitions I quoted
above.
But you must not invoke Newton's second law in the definition of
inertial (or Galilean) system - because it makes no sense.
> > Then I would tend to understand your definition. But with this
definition
>
> > Galilean inertial system is defined up to arbitrary linear transformation
> and
> > does not include any requirement concerning metric standards.
>
> Yes, Newton took a lot for granted, and so did Einstein when he took over
> Newton's work. Mach did somewhat better, but I can see I had better not
> open that can of worms.
Why do you call it "can of worms?" I am simply trying to understand your
"Heretical Verities".
> > If S,
> > equipped with space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t) is a Galilean i.s., then
> > S' is also Galilean inertial if and only if (x',y,'z',t') are related to
> (x,y,z,t)
> > by an arbitrary transformation of the form:
> >
> > x'=a11*x+a12*y+a13*z+a14*t+ a1
> > ....
> > t'=a41*x+a42*y+a43*z+a44*t+a4
> >
> > Is that what what you mean? Then and only then Newton's first law is valid
> > in S if and only if it is valid in S'.
>
> Yes.
All right. If so, then we discard all metric standards. There is no one.
Because no metric is preserved by all linear transformations. Because
there is no metric standard, there is no concept of a "rectangular
coordinates" and there is no way to measure speed - because
it requires metric (Cartesian or other). So there is no way to speak
of v^2 - it makes no sense until metric is fixed.
> > But then you have "to first order in
> > all velocity-dimensional parameters.". What THAT means?
> > That means you admit arbitrary transformations? How many
> > "velocity-dimensional parameters" you allow for and of what form?
> > What exactly do you mean: mathematically and operationally?
> > I tried to figure it out but simply could not.
>
> I guess I meant that effects of order (v/c)^2 are neglected.
But v^2 makes no sense and c^2 too. Both of them need
metric. But even if there is a metric standard I do not know
what you mean by the above? What kind of (v/c)^2
order effects are supposed to be neglected? Which
v^2 is supposed to be small and with respect to what?
I fail to grasp it.
> > Moreover, on p. 44 you kind of remind the above formulation:
> > "... Galilean inertial system (defined above as one in which
> > Newton's laws are obeyed)" but now you skip "up to first order."
> > So I really do not know do you mean it or not? But you keep using
> > plural "laws" rather than "law". Do you mean also
> > Newton's second law? How are you gonna check it using only
> > Newton's laws and knowing nothing about nature of forces
> > that acts on the bodies?
>
> Newton's three laws of motion. OK, I'm wrong. I surrender. You do it
> right and I promise not to complain.
Einstein and Pauli did it right, not me!
> > 2. Inertial system.
> >
> > On p. 44 you say:
> >
> > "Definition. An inertial system is any material collective all constituents
> > of which continually share the same state of motion and in undergoing
> > any changes of that state do so at equal proper times."
> >
> > I do not understand this. "State of motion" you say. With respect to what?
>
> Since they are sharing a state of motion, I could say "with respect to each
> other."
Then what it means "The same state of motion with respect to each
other?". What do you mean by "state of motion?" You are using undefined
concept in an important definition. To assure that the state of motion is
"the same" one needs to measure something. What do you want to
measure?
> > With respect to Galilean inertial system? What do you mean by that?
>
> No, this is a new deal ... I am now talking "inertial system in a broader
> sense," no longer limited to Galilean inertial motions.
I know. Yet we need to measure with respect to something!
> At this point I hope to cover the sort of "inertial motions" Einstein was
> talking about when he spoke of an elevator in free fall as an inertial
> system.
Einstein was using the concept of a "local inertial observer", and
this term became pretty clear when he used flat "tangent space"
in a curved space. Synge in his General Relativity gave
even better mathematical representation of a falling elevator.
Tom, all this I know. But I want to understand your "Heretical
Verities".
> > What do you mean mathematically and operationally? Does the above
>
> > "definition" involves setting up space and/or time coordinates?
>
> No, not necessarily.
>
> > What do
> > you mean by "the same state of motion?" The same velocity vector v(t)
> > with respect to a given Galilean inertial system S_0 for each
> > time t of S_0? Or something else?
>
> Is it not true that any reference system (in general motion) will serve as
> an observation platform from which to determine whether a set of point
> particles have the same or different "states of motion"?
No, it is not true, unless you define your "sharing the same state of
motion"
as "having completely arbitrary motion whatsoever" - but I do not think
you meant THAT! So, the answer is NO, it is not true.
> If different,
> they change their spatial relationships, etc.
What do you mean by "spatial relationships?" Distances?
Are we assuming that metric and simultaneity is defined?
I understood from the above that you do not need metric and
coordinates. Now we need them?
> If the same, they move as a
> "classically rigid" framework.
The term "the same" is undefined. What is supposed to be the same as
what?
> I see no ambiguity unless the "point
> particles" have spatial extent, in which case ambiguity arises about their
> states of spin. Please permit me to exclude that case.
Tom, I am not talking about spin. I am trying to understand sentence after
sentence in your book!
>
> > When you say "at equal
> > proper times" - what do you mean by that? You mean that S_0
> > is irrelevant?
>
> I picture each particle of the rigidly moving array as having a co-moving
> clock, all clocks having been synchronized (let us say) at some time in the
> remote past when the array was at rest in a Galilean inertial system.
No, you cannot do that. This leaves complete arbitrariness because we
know nothing about past histories of constituents. They could have been
completely chaotic. We can have two different systems that had
completely
different past histories. And, say, they merged into one after certain
time.
Their synchronizations are so drastically different that using this
method for a definition of an inertial system "a la local elevator"
With respect to one synchronization the system may look
"inertial" with respect to the other as "wildly rotating." That will not
work.
> This
> should certainly have been spelled out more clearly. To maintain the
> identity of subsequent states of motion, it is necessary to stipulate that
> equal forces
Equal forces measured with respect to what? If we start with a
an Cartesian Galilean system S0 and apply equal forces at equal proper
times
to all points of a given reference frame you end up with a system
that is obtained from the original system by time dependent
translation - and only by that.You may try to generalize it a little bit
by
allowing rigid rotation (in S0).
Is it what you mean?
> are applied to each clock-particle at equal proper times
> meaning at equal readings of the co-moving clocks.
We do not need all these clocks for the above definition.
They add nothing with respect to the original
coordinate time of S0 - the only one that is needed.
Unless you mean something else than what I
have suggested above. If so then what is it?
> The forces and motions
> can be arbitrary, as long as this stipulation is honored. Now you are
> going to ask me what equal forces are ... right? Equal forces are what
> produce equal motions -- such as not to disturb spatial interrelationships
> of the particles.
I have already criticized this concept "spatial interrelationships".
The concept needs metric and simultaneity - otherwise these are just
words without operational meaning.
> > If so what do you mean by "the same state of motion"?
> > What relation between coordinates of S and S_0 would be appropriate
> > to define "an inertial system?"
>
> Well, this is purely my speculation, but I speculate that if the above
> conditions are obeyed then, despite its "arbitrary motion" the rigid
> framework of identically moving particles can serve as an "inertial
> system."
I assume that you agree on my proposition above: a system
obtained from a Cartesian Galilean system (see Pauli) by
a time dependent orthogonal transformation. Why do you call
such a system "inertial" if the law of inertia is not valid in such
a system? (see Pauli above).
> That would seem to imply that Newton's laws must apply in it ...
> meaning that if now a new particle comes in and moves under some different
> set of forces with respect to "meter sticks" co-moving with the frame, then
> it will obey Newton's laws with respect to that frame, at least at first
> order. That is a very nutty idea, unless one also specifies that all
> particles of the actual universe must partake of the "arbitrary motion"
> defining the rigid frame -- i.e., they must be part of the frame. In that
> case, Mach's ideas could be invoked to lend the claim some credence. But
> it's all speculation and intended to stir up new thoughts, not to announce
> some new truth. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Moreover, that was all twelve
> years ago and I have not thought about it since. So, I could me misleading
> you even about what I thought then.
All right., it was twelve years ago and it was not to announce some new
truth. In fact you repeated essentially the same in your answer to my
questions concerning Maxwell equations - you wrote
"Alternatively, I
could have forgotten what I said or thought 12-15 years ago."
Well, if you have forgotten what you wrote in your book about
relativity and electrodynamics, that means these parts of your book
were not so important. If so - then which part of your book IS
IMPORTANT? Which part should I concentrate on and analyze
thoroughly? Which is THE IMPORTANT part?
>
> > As I said, I am still trying to understand the message contained in
> > Chapter II of your book. I have now some idea as to what you
> > mean by clock synchronization using proper time. But, as you
> > see from the above, I have other problems.
> >
> > 3. Finally let me ask this: Are we supposed to assume that there
> > exists at least one frame of reference (including coordinates (x,y,z,t))
> > in which
> > a) Newton's first law is satisfied
> > b) For some constant "c" Einstein's proper time formula relating
> > coordinate time t and proper time tau is valid?
> > My guess is that you will answer "yes", but I want to be sure.
>
> Yes, probably safest to limit things to a Galilean inertial system. The
> basic invariant is the proper time interval, and a really logical approach
> would doubtless use it to define the other quantities ... but we are used
> to thinking of the quadratic relationship you have in mind as the
> "definition of proper time," and I have not tried to innovate some better
> approach.
>
> Best, Tom.
All the best
ark
*******************************************
Date sent: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:24:30 -0500
To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
From: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Copies to: Jack Sarfatti
Dear AJ,
I am afraid that your implacable application of the Socratic method
shows
that it need not converge. At least your email messages are growing
longer
rather than shorter. In consequence I am falling behind on my other
correspondence and must declare a moratorium. Moreover, since walking
fat
dumb and happy into your
> >
> > x'=a11*x+a12*y+a13*z+a14*t+ a1
> > ....
> > t'=a41*x+a42*y+a43*z+a44*t+a4
> >
trap it has become obvious to me that your agenda is not, as you claim,
to
"understand" me or my 1987 book but to punish me for my sins of
commission
and omission. If you will read carefully my responses you will see that
I
surrendered some time ago, in hopes of getting on with my life and
errors.
But I see that does not assuage your urge to punish. Mere surrender
will
not do ... justice requires incarceration? Atonement for guilt? ... ?
Permit me a parting or Parthian shot: I said
> > It is essentially the one used by Einstein in 1905. I should have
> > specified Newton's laws in their simplest form -- meaning of course without
> > centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, etc.
You responded:
> In "Relativity - the Special and General Theory" Einstein wrote
> "A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law
> of inertia holds relative to it is called a 'Galilean system of coordinates".
> That was his original definition. Only Newton's first law is being used in
> the definition. Which makes sense. Later on, true, he messes up
> with Newton's other laws, what makes no sense, yet he starts with
> what makes sense.
Now look ... if we are going to peck at peccadilloes, Einstein's
"original
definition" manifestly cannot be deduced from anything with "General
Theory" in its title. I referred to his 1905 paper. You can verify by
consulting the Dover book of reprints, "The Principle of Relativity"
that
Einstein's 1905 paper, "I. Kinematical Part," begins with the words
"Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good."
To the word "good" is appended a footnote:
"i.e., to the first approximation."
Please apply even-handedly your Socratic method to this "original
definition" of the master ... beginning, perhaps, with "to the first
approximation in what?"
> Einstein and Pauli did it right, not me!
In view of this fact I unconditionally resign and acknowledge defeat.
Please report to the shades of Einstein and Pauli that you have emerged
the
victor ... or the loser, if your aim was indeed to "understand" what I
was
doing.
Now I really must end this exchange, as I do not feel it is doing
anything
good for the tempers of either of us.
Best, Tom.
****************************************************
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Tom Phipps
Subject: Re: Heretical Verities
Copies to: Jack Sarfatti
Date sent: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:43:42 -0400
Dear Tom,
You acknowledge to me these errors and refuse to be responsible
for the content of the book that you wrote. What can I say?
You complain that my e-mail is growing. What can I say?
Perhaps Jack will learn something from this exchange
too. Perhaps he will warn other members of his e-mail
list. But will he?
All the best wishes,
ark
On 12 Oct 99, at 22:24, Tom Phipps wrote:
> Dear AJ,
>
> I am afraid that your implacable application of the Socratic method
> shows
> that it need not converge. At least your email messages are growing
> longer
> rather than shorter. In consequence I am falling behind on my other
> correspondence and must declare a moratorium. Moreover, since walking
> fat
> dumb and happy into your
> > >
> > > x'=a11*x+a12*y+a13*z+a14*t+ a1
> > > ....
> > > t'=a41*x+a42*y+a43*z+a44*t+a4
> > >
> trap it has become obvious to me that your agenda is not, as you claim,
> to
> "understand" me or my 1987 book but to punish me for my sins of
> commission
> and omission. If you will read carefully my responses you will see that
> I
> surrendered some time ago, in hopes of getting on with my life and
> errors.
**************
Date sent: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:46:44 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: JSARFATTI
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Zuke119 at aol.com wrote:
> Hi, my name is .... and I'm a sophomore at Virginia Polytechnic
> Institute.
[Jack]
Is Professor I J Good still alive in Statistics. I am sure he is emeritus. You
should talk to him if he is alive. Ask him about his "GOD(D)" paper and about
his work with Alan Turing in WWII.
[Zuke]
> I'm in a dilemma as to what I wish to do with my future, and am
> hoping you have the experience with which to advise me. I am currently
> studying aerospace engineering with the intention of leaning towards the
> space / propulsion side of the field. But since I was a freshman in high
> school I have had a love for the cosmos and theoretical physics. I can't
> ditch my aerospace education, so I'd like to find a way I can incorporate
> both. Do you have any suggestions of how this can be done?
[Jack]
Yes, of course. First read all of Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures in Theoretical
Physics from the VPI library. Then read The Feynman Lectures in Physics. Then
read Bohm and Hiley's The Undivided Universe. Finally read Thomas E Phipps Jr's
Heretical Verities.
[X]
> More
> importantly, I guess - Are there employment options for a student with this
> sort of a background? Companies I should be investigating?
[Jack]
I am the worst person in the world to ask about that since I dropped out of
that world almost 30 years ago like Rip Van Winkle.
>
>
> Thanks for any suggestions you can give me,
>
>
> PS: Love the site. Hopefully I'll be able to understand more of it in the
> coming years.
************
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:50:21 -0400
Jack,
Why do you keep advertising Heretical Verities? This book
is one of the worst examples of obscure writing. Phipps himself
distances from what he has written 12 years ago. He can't
really understand what he himself wrote! Sommerfeld is OK,
Feynman is OK. Bohm and Hiley are ok too. But Phipps
Heretical Verities.
In fact I should write to this poor student to warn him,
but that would be unfair. Instead I will write a review
of Heretical Verities for Amazon.
ark
On 20 Oct 99, at 20:46, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> [Jack]
>
> Yes, of course. First read all of Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures in
> Theoretical
> Physics from the VPI library. Then read The Feynman Lectures in Physics.
> Then
> read Bohm and Hiley's The Undivided Universe. Finally read Thomas E Phipps
> Jr's
> Heretical Verities.
******
Date sent: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:07:45 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Copies to:
Subject: Re: advice for a student
I think the book is important. I certainly do not think the writing is obscure
in general. You seem to be reacting very irrationally. If you find errors what
are they?
I do not buy, I think it was your objection about what to do in regions where
there are no field detectors. Simply take v = 0 there in the convective time
derivatives.
I am not saying Phipps is correct and Einstein is wrong. That is a matter for
experiment and for further theoretical development of Phipps's point of view
when the convective field of motion of the detectors is not constant.
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> Jack,
> Why do you keep advertising Heretical Verities? This book
> is one of the worst examples of obscure writing. Phipps himself
> distances from what he has written 12 years ago. He can't
> really understand what he himself wrote! Sommerfeld is OK,
> Feynman is OK. Bohm and Hiley are ok too. But Phipps
> Heretical Verities.
>
> In fact I should write to this poor student to warn him,
> but that would be unfair. Instead I will write a review
> of Heretical Verities for Amazon.
>
> ark
>
> On 20 Oct 99, at 20:46, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> > [Jack]
> >
> > Yes, of course. First read all of Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures in
> > Theoretical
> > Physics from the VPI library. Then read The Feynman Lectures in Physics.
> > Then
> > read Bohm and Hiley's The Undivided Universe. Finally read Thomas E Phipps
> > Jr's
> > Heretical Verities.
******
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:17:27 -0400
On 23 Oct 99, at 8:07, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> I think the book is important. I certainly do not think the writing is obscure
> in general. You seem to be reacting very irrationally. If you find errors
what
> are they?
>
> I do not buy, I think it was your objection about what to do in regions where
> there are no field detectors. Simply take v = 0 there in the convective time
> derivatives.
> Jack,
What you propose is not a solution to my problem. Phipps
needs the formula (4.19b) to hold:
v_d=(v_d)'-v'
under Galilean transformations. That means if v_d is zero
in one frame it must not be zero in another frame. Does that
mean that when there are NO sinks in one frame, they suddenly
appear in any other uniformly moving frame?
That makes no sense. Of course, you can say, we
know there is Hawking-Unruh effect: accelerated
counters register counts even in vacuum. But here we are dealing
with uniform motion, not acceleration. Would you say that
what is vacuum (no detectors or sinks) for one observer,
becomes a space filled with detectors all over for another
inertial observer? Does it makes sense to you?
ark
*****
Date sent: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:19:26 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti {>
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Copies to: "Thomas E Phipps, Jr"
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> On 23 Oct 99, at 8:07, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> > I think the book is important. I certainly do not think the writing is obscure
> > in general. You seem to be reacting very irrationally. If you find errors
what
> > are they?
> >
> > I do not buy, I think it was your objection about what to do in regions
where
> > there are no field detectors. Simply take v = 0 there in the convective
time
> > derivatives.
>
> Jack,
>
> What you propose is not a solution to my problem. Phipps
> needs the formula (4.19b) to hold:
>
> v_d=(v_d)'-v'
>
> under Galilean transformations. That means if v_d is zero
> in one frame it must not be zero in another frame. Does that
> mean that when there are NO sinks in one frame, they suddenly
> appear in any other uniformly moving frame?
> That makes no sense. Of course, you can say, we
> know there is Hawking-Unruh effect: accelerated
> counters register counts even in vacuum. But here we are dealing
> with uniform motion, not acceleration. Would you say that
> what is vacuum (no detectors or sinks) for one observer,
> becomes a space filled with detectors all over for another
> inertial observer? Does it makes sense to you?
>
> ark
No, of course, the presence of an actual field detector is an objective invariant
for all observers. Why can't you turn your argument equally on the source current
J?
What are Maxwell's equations in a region free of both sources and sinks?
dF = 0
*d*F = 0
Actually the above is from John Baez, who I think ignores Sommerfeld's and Kiehn's
distinction between E and B compared to D and H.
What are they in a region with both sources and sinks? They are what Phipps
says
they are. Where's the problem of conceptual consistency?
Whenever you do an experiment you obviously have to have field detectors to
record
the data.
*****
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:33:07 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Copies to: "Thomas E Phipps, Jr"
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
On 24 Oct 99, at 20:19, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> No, of course, the presence of an actual field detector is an
objective invariant
> for all observers. Why can't you turn your argument equally on the
source current J?
> What are Maxwell's equations in a region free of both sources and
sinks?
Jack,
There is s difference between the source term J in Maxwell
equations and the convection term in Phipp's version.
The source term J is, roughly, the product of density of
charge times velocity. The convection term has no "density
of sinks" in it. It either is or is not. It cannot be in grades.
You can make current to disappear by taking density
=0. The transformation law for current (Phipps formula
4.13b is j=j' - rho' * v'. So, when rho is zero (no sources) ,
the current stays zero in all Galilean frames. It is not so
with v_d, which obeys formula 1.19b.
Would you agree on this?
ark
Looking at pages 123-124
eq 4.16
jd = -rho vd
rho is the source density
Therefore eq. 4.19b is harmless. Now this is off the top of my head and
I need to go back and review it all. What does Phipps say?
*****
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:36:36 -0400
On 25 Oct 99, at 7:33, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Looking at pages 123-124
> eq 4.16
> jd = -rho vd
> rho is the source density
> Therefore eq. 4.19b is harmless. Now this is off the top of my head and
> I need to go back and review it all. What does Phipps say?
What does Phipps say? Here is what he says:
"I could have forgotten what I said or thought 12-15 years ago."
and
"It has become obvious to me that your agenda is not, as you claim,
> to "understand" me or my 1987 book but to punish me for my sins of
> commission and omission. If you will read carefully my responses you
> will see that I surrendered some time ago, in hopes of getting on with my
> life and errors."
Which is not of much help. So we have to figure it out all by ourselves....
His final equations are (4.39a)-(4.39d). Equation (4.39a) has jm=js-jd.
I am not talking about this equation. I am talking about 4.39b that
contain dB/dt term which is defined using vd (but no density). He
needs this term in this form to make equation invariant. It is this term
that makes no sense. It has no "density of sinks" in it. It either is
(when vd is not zero) or is not (when vd=0). If it is not in one frame
- it appears in another one. And this is independent of whether the density
is
zero or not! Indeed, density of sinks appears only in jd (which is part of jm
which appears in 4.39a) BUT NOT in 4.39b.
You see my problem?
ark
********
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:59:41 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Copies to: C Levit {creon at isso.org> , Eric Davis {nids2 at kitfox.anv.net>
,
Hal Puthoff {puthoff at aol.com> , Joe Firmage {jfirmage at uswebcks.com> ,
John Walker {kelvin at fourmilab.ch> ,
Oleg Jefimenko {ODJEF at wvnvaxa.wvnet.edu> , R Kiehn {RKiehn2352 at aol.com>
,
Saul-Paul Sirag {sirag at pond.net> ,
"Thomas E Phipps, Jr" ,
Tony Smith {TSmith at innerx.net>
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
> On 25 Oct 99, at 7:33, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> > Looking at pages 123-124
> > eq 4.16
> > jd = -rho vd
> > rho is the source density
> > Therefore eq. 4.19b is harmless. Now this is off the top of my head and
> > I need to go back and review it all. What does Phipps say?
>
> What does Phipps say? Here is what he says:
>
> "I could have forgotten what I said or thought 12-15 years ago."
>
> and
>
> "It has become obvious to me that your agenda is not, as you claim,
> > to "understand" me or my 1987 book but to punish me for my sins of
> > commission and omission. If you will read carefully my responses you
> > will see that I surrendered some time ago, in hopes of getting on with my
> > life and errors."
>
> Which is not of much help. So we have to figure it out all by ourselves....
>
> His final equations are (4.39a)-(4.39d). Equation (4.39a) has jm=Js-jd
> I am not talking about this equation. I am talking about 4.39b that
> contain dB/dt term which is defined using vd (but no density). He
> needs this term in this form to make equation invariant. It is this term
> that makes no sense. It has no "density of sinks" in it. It either is
> (when vd is not zero) or is not (when vd=0). If it is not in one frame
> - it appears in another one. And this is independent of whether the density
is
> zero or not! Indeed, density of sinks appears only in jd (which is part of
jm
> which appears in 4.39a) BUT NOT in 4.39b.
>
> You see my problem?
>
> ark
Yes, I do. But I think the problem is more general and also applies, for example,
to relativity. If you read Wheeler, for example, he is always invoking "test"
particles to derive equations like the geodesic equation. Also we think of events
of having position and times in a given frame of reference even if there are
no
actual clocks at the event, and even no distant detectors receiving light signals
from the event. That is, we imagine, in the sense of gedankenexperiments, and
from those imaginary "clocks" and "measuring rods" at each point in space time,
which are not actually there, we derive correct field equations and correct
equations of motion of test particles (sinks). Wheeler's "test particle" plays
same role in general relativity that Phipps's "field detector" does in his
neo-Galilean modification of Maxwell's electromagnetic field theory. Therefore,
if your argument is sound in general you have not only refuted Phipps, but you
have refuted Einstein equally. Indeed, you have destroyed theoretical physics.
So
Reductio Ad Absurdum your argument is wrong based on a subtle category error.
Remember clouds of clocks and measuring rods defining frames of reference are
used, especially by Wheeler as gedanken experiments to derive equations even
though they are not actually present.
Your point is subtle and we need to continue to debate it. I think the general
issue you are raising has to do with the proper use of gedankenexperiments in
the
formulation of mathematical descriptions of experience. This gets us to Wigner's
essay on the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics". In any
case,
please look at Wheeler's explanations of orthodox relativity using "test
particles" and apply your same mode of argument to that.
Example, Wheeler derives space-time curvature operationally as "tidal forces"
in
a gedankenexperiment with several test particles in a small region of space-time.
Now these "test particles" are obviously "sinks" for gravity quanta if you want
to use that picture, in exactly the same way that Phipps's "field detectors"
are
charged sinks for EM quanta. So, by your argument, since there are no actual
real
test particles at every point of space-time, there is no actual curvature, hence
no actual gravity until we look at it. That is, your argument seems to require
observer-created reality even on the classical level. That is your argument
basically seems to reduce to a kind of subjective idealism close to solipsism.
I
may be wrong. So let's keep discussing this.
My basic point is that your argument applies to more than Phipps's model if
it is
correct. I do not think it is correct for reasons given above.
********
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:36:36 -0400
On 25 Oct 99, at 7:33, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Looking at pages 123-124
> eq 4.16
> jd = -rho vd
> rho is the source density
> Therefore eq. 4.19b is harmless. Now this is off the top of my head and
> I need to go back and review it all. What does Phipps say?
What does Phipps say? Here is what he says:
"I could have forgotten what I said or thought 12-15 years ago."
and
"It has become obvious to me that your agenda is not, as you claim,
> to "understand" me or my 1987 book but to punish me for my sins of
> commission and omission. If you will read carefully my responses you
> will see that I surrendered some time ago, in hopes of getting on with my
> life and errors."
Which is not of much help. So we have to figure it out all by ourselves....
His final equations are (4.39a)-(4.39d). Equation (4.39a) has jm=Js-jd
I am not talking about this equation. I am talking about 4.39b that
contain dB/dt term which is defined using vd (but no density). He
needs this term in this form to make equation invariant. It is this term
that makes no sense. It has no "density of sinks" in it. It either is
(when vd is not zero) or is not (when vd=0). If it is not in one frame
- it appears in another one. And this is independent of whether the density
is
zero or not! Indeed, density of sinks appears only in jd (which is part of jm
which appears in 4.39a) BUT NOT in 4.39b.
You see my problem?
ark
*********
*********
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:15:45 -0400
On 25 Oct 99, at 8:59, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Yes, I do. But I think the problem is more general and also applies, for example,
> to relativity. If you read Wheeler, for example, he is always invoking "test"
> particles to derive equations like the geodesic equation. Also we think of
events
> of having position and times in a given frame of reference even if there are
no
> actual clocks at the event, and even no distant detectors receiving light
signals
> from the event. That is, we imagine, in the sense of gedankenexperiments,
and
> from those imaginary "clocks" and "measuring rods" at each point in space
time,
> which are not actually there, we derive correct field equations and correct
> equations of motion of test particles (sinks). Wheeler's "test particle" plays
> same role in general relativity that Phipps's "field detector" does in his
> neo-Galilean modification of Maxwell's electromagnetic field theory.
I agree that there IS a problem with our imagining that that there is time
and space. That there is "time" even if there are no clocks. I agree
that there is such a problem and I agree that Phipps was trying to
discuss and to deal with this problem. But: Wheeler writes Einstein
field equations in its standard form - even when there is no matter
and no sources and no test particles. Matter tells space how to curve.
Good. When there is no matter - space is flat (or of constant curvature if
you have cosmological term). The main point is that: if you add a little
of matter then space curves only a little. This is not the case with Phipps
term in 4.39b. You either have it or have it not. You can not
make it small. There is no coupling constant in front of vd. It is this
particular term that makes a problem. There is no anything similar in
Einstein field equations.
> Therefore,
> if your argument is sound in general you have not only refuted Phipps, but
you
> have refuted Einstein equally.
No. The only similar thing in Einstein field equations is that if connection
coefficients are zero in one frame, they become non-zero in accelerated
frame. But with Phipps we have this phenomenon for uniform motion, not
for accelerated.
> Indeed, you have destroyed theoretical physics.
No, Jack. If you read me correctly, I am only attacking
the following pair:
a) Phipps term with vd (written explicitly) in 4.35
b) his interpretation of this term as "velocity of sinks)
I am not saying that "one cannot invent a reasonable
interpretation" of the vd term. I am not saying this.
What I am saying is: "Phipp's interpretation is not
a reasonable one." And I am showing why so.
> So
> Reductio Ad Absurdum your argument is wrong based on a subtle category error.
> Remember clouds of clocks and measuring rods defining frames of reference
are
> used, especially by Wheeler as gedanken experiments to derive equations even
> though they are not actually present.
I know.
> Your point is subtle and we need to continue to debate it. I think the general
> issue you are raising has to do with the proper use of gedankenexperiments
in the
> formulation of mathematical descriptions of experience. This gets us to Wigner's
> essay on the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics". In any
case,
> please look at Wheeler's explanations of orthodox relativity using "test
> particles" and apply your same mode of argument to that.
>
> Example, Wheeler derives space-time curvature operationally as "tidal forces"
in
> a gedankenexperiment with several test particles in a small region of space-time.
> Now these "test particles" are obviously "sinks" for gravity quanta if you
want
> to use that picture, in exactly the same way that Phipps's "field detectors"
are
> charged sinks for EM quanta.
No. Here we have a problem. Wheelers uses test particles to show how
effects of curvature can be discovered. But he writes Einstein field
equations with energy-momentum tensor on the right. You can put this
energy momentum to zero and still field equations make sense.
Energy momentum tensor contains mass density, pressure, perhaps
also energy-momentum tensor of other fields, and it can be smaller
and smaller and go to zero. This is not the case with Phipps vd term.
It can not be "smaller" when sink density is getting smaller. It is
independent of density of sinks! Therefore, I deduce either
a) equation 4.39 is wrong
or
b) Phipps interpretation of vd as "velocity of sinks" is wrong
> So, by your argument, since there are no actual real
> test particles at every point of space-time, there is no actual curvature,
hence
> no actual gravity until we look at it. That is, your argument seems to require
> observer-created reality even on the classical level. That is your argument
> basically seems to reduce to a kind of subjective idealism close to solipsism.
I
> may be wrong. So let's keep discussing this.
Now, what you are talking about is an important problem. But let us
isolate it from the particular problem at hand: Phipp's vd term.
> My basic point is that your argument applies to more than Phipps's model if
it is
> correct. I do not think it is correct for reasons given above.
I tried to explain it above. I hope I was clear. I hope you
agree now: yes, we do have a problem with 4.35 and 4.39.
But now let me try to say something constructive. I do think that
there is problem with "time". I do think that there is a problem
with our imagining that "time" exists at every space location, whether
there is is something there or not. Historically, we first had mechanics, and
time was only assumed to "be" on a trajectory of a particle. But then
we moved to field theories and we put time on equal foot with space
variables f(x,y,z,t). First it was a formal mathematical trick. But then
it became a habit. What is wrong with it? How to change it? Can we
do field theory without time? Probably not. But reading Phipps we
see that he is trying to make time more operational by employing
proper time synchronization method. However he falls short of
attaining his goal. He moves a step forward, and he stops. As the
result what he does is inconsistent (btw. he resigned to me from
supporting his synchronization methods too). But, I think,
he suggest something reasonable. WE can't do without time.
Like we can't do without space. We use our Platonic space.
Three dimensions. That's fine. But is that necessarily true
that adding time is that simple as adding one extra space
dimension? Think of all these crazy oscillating proper clocks
that Phipps is trying to synchronize.... Are you so sure
that WE CAN synchronize them? Or is it our wishful
thinking and oversimplification. Einstein decided that
the correct form for expressing laws of nature should
be "generally covariant" - that is, in particular - independent
of any method of synchronization used. But, perhaps, as Phipps
points it out, we should look for something even more general
than that. For a way to express laws of nature EVEN if no
synchronization methods can really synchronize the clocks.
How to do it? Well, I have just started thinking about it
and have some ideas, but they are quite fresh and not
yet developed.
Back to Phipps "Hertzian Electromagnetism":
I can not buy the term vd in 4.35 and 4.39 as "velocity of sinks"
because this term does not depend on density of sinks.
Therefore a) or b) above.
ark
****
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:01:33 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
I agree that there IS a problem with our imagining that that there is
time
and space. That there is "time" even if there are no clocks. I agree
that there is such a problem and I agree that Phipps was trying to
discuss and to deal with this problem. But: Wheeler writes Einstein
field equations in its standard form - even when there is no matter
and no sources and no test particles. Matter tells space how to curve.
Good. When there is no matter - space is flat (or of constant curvature
if
you have cosmological term).
[Jack]
Yes but he derives the very concept of curvature from the tidal forces
on pairs of test particles = sinks = field detectors in Phipps's sense.
The main point is that: if you add a little
of matter then space curves only a little. This is not the case with
Phipps
term in 4.39b. You either have it or have it not. You can not
make it small. There is no coupling constant in front of vd. It is this
particular term that makes a problem. There is no anything similar in
Einstein field equations.
[Jack]
Well let's continue to think about this.
> Therefore,
> if your argument is sound in general you have not only refuted Phipps,
but you
> have refuted Einstein equally.
[Ark]
No. The only similar thing in Einstein field equations is that if
connection
coefficients are zero in one frame, they become non-zero in accelerated
frame. But with Phipps we have this phenomenon for uniform motion, not
for accelerated.
[Jack]
So what? Of course, if there were a preferred frame of absolute rest the
problem you raise would vanish. Vigier says there is such a frame and
that it is that frame in which the observed cosmologically redshifted
black body photons are isotropic. vd is then the velocity relative to
that frame. This is also the frame in which the quantum potential Q acts
instantly. However, in Phipps's neo-Galilean replacement of Einstein's
clock synchronization, all properly synchronized frames have absolute
simultaneity with no length contraction. There is still time-dilation.
There is also relative velocity nonreciprocity which is the most
counterintuitive idea Phipps proposes. The strength in the Phipps
Alternative is that it fits quantum theory's nonlocality much better
than Einstein's special relativity with its relative simultaneity and
length contraction.
> Indeed, you have destroyed theoretical physics.
No, Jack. If you read me correctly, I am only attacking
the following pair:
a) Phipps term with vd (written explicitly) in 4.35
b) his interpretation of this term as "velocity of sinks)
I am not saying that "one cannot invent a reasonable
interpretation" of the vd term. I am not saying this.
What I am saying is: "Phipp's interpretation is not
a reasonable one." And I am showing why so.
[Jack]
What is a reasonable interpretation? Suppose we use Maxwell's equations
in integral form. We then replace local point divergences with vector
field flux integrals around closed surfaces, and we replace local point
curls with line integrals of vector fields around closed loops. So
imagine that these closed surfaces and loops are distorting, translating
and rotating in time. This would require something like vd also. Is that
what you have in mind?
> So
> Reductio Ad Absurdum your argument is wrong based on a subtle category
error.
> Remember clouds of clocks and measuring rods defining frames of
reference are
> used, especially by Wheeler as gedanken experiments to derive
equations even
> though they are not actually present.
I know.
> Your point is subtle and we need to continue to debate it. I think the
general
> issue you are raising has to do with the proper use of
gedankenexperiments in the
> formulation of mathematical descriptions of experience. This gets us
to Wigner's
> essay on the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics".
In any case,
> please look at Wheeler's explanations of orthodox relativity using
"test
> particles" and apply your same mode of argument to that.
>
> Example, Wheeler derives space-time curvature operationally as "tidal
forces" in
> a gedankenexperiment with several test particles in a small region of
space-time.
> Now these "test particles" are obviously "sinks" for gravity quanta if
you want
> to use that picture, in exactly the same way that Phipps's "field
detectors" are
> charged sinks for EM quanta.
No. Here we have a problem. Wheeler uses test particles to show how
effects of curvature can be discovered. But he writes Einstein field
equations with energy-momentum tensor on the right. You can put this
energy momentum to zero and still field equations make sense.
Energy momentum tensor contains mass density, pressure, perhaps
also energy-momentum tensor of other fields, and it can be smaller
and smaller and go to zero. This is not the case with Phipps vd term.
It can not be "smaller" when sink density is getting smaller. It is
independent of density of sinks! Therefore, I deduce either
a) equation 4.39 is wrong
or
b) Phipps interpretation of vd as "velocity of sinks" is wrong
[Jack]
OK, I need to reread Phipps on this when I can find the time. If Phipps
does not have an immediate compelling refutation of your point, you may
have found the fatal flaw in his theory saving Einstein, saving tensors
and spinors, a victory of covariance over invariance etc. However, my
intuition says Phipp's idea to replace partial time derivatives by total
time derivatives is a very good one. We will see.
> So, by your argument, since there are no actual real
> test particles at every point of space-time, there is no actual
curvature, hence
> no actual gravity until we look at it. That is, your argument seems to
require
> observer-created reality even on the classical level. That is your
argument
> basically seems to reduce to a kind of subjective idealism close to
solipsism. I
> may be wrong. So let's keep discussing this.
Now, what you are talking about is an important problem. But let us
isolate it from the particular problem at hand: Phipp's vd term.
> My basic point is that your argument applies to more than Phipps's
model if it is
> correct. I do not think it is correct for reasons given above.
I tried to explain it above. I hope I was clear. I hope you
agree now: yes, we do have a problem with 4.35 and 4.39.
[Jack]
I agree you are raising an interesting point that needs to be addressed
more clearly by Einstein's method of the "gedankenexperiment". So we
will a little think on it. Good work. :-)
[Ark]
But now let me try to say something constructive. I do think that
there is problem with "time". I do think that there is a problem
with our imagining that "time" exists at every space location, whether
there is something there or not.
[Jack]
Yes, this was one of the problems I was alluding to.
Historically, we first had mechanics, and
time was only assumed to "be" on a trajectory of a particle. But then
we moved to field theories and we put time on equal footing with space
variables f(x,y,z,t). First it was a formal mathematical trick. But then
it became a habit. What is wrong with it? How to change it? Can we
do field theory without time? Probably not. But reading Phipps we
see that he is trying to make time more operational by employing
proper time synchronization method. However he falls short of
attaining his goal. He moves a step forward, and he stops. As the
result what he does is inconsistent (btw. he resigned to me from
supporting his synchronization methods too).
[Jack]
Well that is a key point in his whole theory. I hope Tom will confirm or
deny what you just said.
[Ark]
But, I think,
he suggests something reasonable. WE can't do without time.
Like we can't do without space. We use our Platonic space.
Three dimensions. That's fine. But is that necessarily true
that adding time is that simple as adding one extra space
dimension? Think of all these crazy oscillating proper clocks
that Phipps is trying to synchronize.... Are you so sure
that WE CAN synchronize them? Or is it our wishful
thinking and oversimplification.
[Jack]
Ask Tom Van Flandern about the GPS system. That is a relevant example.
[Ark]
Einstein decided that
the correct form for expressing laws of nature should
be "generally covariant" - that is, in particular - independent
of any method of synchronization used. But, perhaps, as Phipps
points it out, we should look for something even more general
than that. For a way to express laws of nature EVEN if no
synchronization methods can really synchronize the clocks.
How to do it? Well, I have just started thinking about it
and have some ideas, but they are quite fresh and not
yet developed.
[Jack]
That is a very good problem to think about. I am very interested in that
problem. You have asked a very important fundamental question of
principle that Phipps was at least partially approaching. Maybe you need
to use category theory and be free of continuity, differentiability
etc.?
[Ark]
Back to Phipps "Hertzian Electromagnetism":
I can not buy the term vd in 4.35 and 4.39 as "velocity of sinks"
because this term does not depend on density of sinks.
[Jack]
OK. I see your objection and we need to think about it. Remember however
a couple of points. The issue of the "sinks" brings in quantum ideas of
backward causation as in Huw Price's book and in Cramer's transactional
interpretation of QM and Aharonov's "double state vector" model in which
future and past collide to create the present quantum eigenvalues in a
"collapse" measurement if you buy that von-Neumannian approach. Also we
have the final absorbers, Phipps's field detectors, required in the
Wheeler-Feynman classical action at a distance electrodynamics in which
the EM field as an independent dynamical system is completely
eliminated! Phipps's idea of vd is reminiscent of that.
Ok here is something else to consider. What about the causal light cone
structure of classical general relativity required for the
Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems at the core of black hole physics?
We picture a light cone at each point in space-time even if there is no
actual point source of light there. So it seems to me you have a double
standard assigning more virtual reality to sources than to sinks. This
comes, perhaps from the prejudice of retarded causality of only past
causes and future effects. I mean it's OK to imagine a point source of
light at each and every space-time event even though its not really
there. But it's not OK to imagine a field detector at each space-time
point even though it's not really there?
There is another point. We do have vacuum polarization charge
fluctuations at every point in space-time. So perhaps they act as albeit
very weak "field detector" since there is a tiny probability for photons
to scatter off them? However,
"for free photons or for traveling electromagnetic waves in empty
space, there is no vacuum polarization effect that depends linearly on
the electromagnetic field." Sakurai p. 283 "Advanced Quantum Mechanics".
What about standing wave EM modes in a nanometer-sized quantum dot
cavity for example?
*****
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:28:37 -0400
On 25 Oct 99, at 18:01, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>
> Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I agree that there IS a problem with our imagining that that there is
> time
> and space. That there is "time" even if there are no clocks. I agree
> that there is such a problem and I agree that Phipps was trying to
> discuss and to deal with this problem. But: Wheeler writes Einstein
> field equations in its standard form - even when there is no matter
> and no sources and no test particles. Matter tells space how to curve.
> Good. When there is no matter - space is flat (or of constant curvature
> if
> you have cosmological term).
>
>
>
> [Jack]
>
>
> Yes but he derives the very concept of curvature from the tidal forces
> on pairs of test particles = sinks = field detectors in Phipps's sense.
No, no, no. He did not derive curvature. He he shows that curvature
(or at leas part of the curvature) has a direct physical meaning -
if you put test particles there. But, notice, these must be test
particles. They must obey geodesic equations, but they do not
enter field equations (otherwise the problem would become insoluble).
> No. The only similar thing in Einstein field equations is that if
> connection
> coefficients are zero in one frame, they become non-zero in accelerated
> frame. But with Phipps we have this phenomenon for uniform motion, not
> for accelerated.
>
>
>
> [Jack]
>
>
> So what? Of course, if there were a preferred frame of absolute rest the
> problem you raise would vanish. Vigier says there is such a frame and
> that it is that frame in which the observed cosmologically redshifted
> black body photons are isotropic. vd is then the velocity relative to
> that frame.
My problem would not disappear. Even if there is a preferred frame, we
are not obliged to use it. In fact Phipps wants to write his equations
in another Galilean frame, and he postulates certain transformation
laws. And also he gives interpretation for this extra term (as velocity
of sinks). What I say is this: it makes no sense. Either the extra term is
wrong, or it must not be interpreted as velocity of sinks.
>
This is also the frame in which the quantum potential Q acts
> instantly. However, in Phipps's neo-Galilean replacement of Einstein's
> clock synchronization, all properly synchronized frames have absolute
> simultaneity with no length contraction. There is still time-dilation.
> There is also relative velocity nonreciprocity which is the most
> counterintuitive idea Phipps proposes. The strength in the Phipps
> Alternative is that it fits quantum theory's nonlocality much better
> than Einstein's special relativity with its relative simultaneity and
> length contraction.
For this you do need Phipps. Take the old ether theory, either from Lorentz
(btw. Dirac liked it too). You have preferred frame. You know what vd
is: velocity of ether. I will not ask my question "what are the
field equations in the region with no ether?" - because
it is part of the assumptions that e-m field is just kind of
stresses with ether. I would have nothing against this ....
well, I would have something, but of a completely different
nature. But Phipps is not saying: "vd is velocity of ether,
ether is everywhere, I am reviving old ether theory, I love it!"
Phipps is saying vd is velocity of "sinks" or "detectors".
What I say is: it can not be true.
> > Indeed, you have destroyed theoretical physics.
No. I am trying to find the truth.
> [Jack]
>
>
> What is a reasonable interpretation? Suppose we use Maxwell's equations
> in integral form. We then replace local point divergences with vector
> field flux integrals around closed surfaces, and we replace local point
> curls with line integrals of vector fields around closed loops. So
> imagine that these closed surfaces and loops are distorting, translating
> and rotating in time. This would require something like vd also.
Something "like" - YES. But Phipps 4.39b+ Phipps interpretation
of vd as "velocity of sinks" = NO.
> [Jack]
>
>
> OK, I need to reread Phipps on this when I can find the time. If Phipps
> does not have an immediate compelling refutation of your point, you may
> have found the fatal flaw in his theory saving Einstein, saving tensors
> and spinors, a victory of covariance over invariance etc. However, my
> intuition says Phipp's idea to replace partial time derivatives by total
> time derivatives is a very good one. We will see.
It may be a good one, but not a very good one. As we got a problem
there. And Phipps himself is not helping us, because, as he says,
he needs "to get with rest of his life." So, probably the issue is of
no importance to him. Probably, I guess, he does not believe
his re-formulation of Maxwell equations is right. Or he KNOWS
that it is not right, and he knows that it is a trap or a dead end,
because he knows that there IS a completely different
approach that works.... These are all my guesses based on
poor evidence, based upon my intuition. But, Jack, you also
use intuition:
"my
> intuition says Phipp's idea to replace partial time derivatives by total
> time derivatives is a very good one. "
> [Jack]
>
>
> That is a very good problem to think about. I am very interested in that
> problem. You have asked a very important fundamental question of
> principle that Phipps was at least partially approaching. Maybe you need
> to use category theory and be free of continuity, differentiability
> etc.?
I don't think so. We need to go beyond what we have now, but
we do not have to go too far. Yes, we can play with categories and functors,
and Kuntz algebras and all that - I was guilty myself of going into this
kind of stuff - but we loose physics out of sight completely. It becomes
a game of its own.
> [Jack]
>
>
> OK. I see your objection and we need to think about it. Remember however
> a couple of points. The issue of the "sinks" brings in quantum ideas of
> backward causation as in Huw Price's book and in Cramer's transactional
> interpretation of QM and Aharonov's "double state vector" model in which
> future and past collide to create the present quantum eigenvalues in a
> "collapse" measurement if you buy that von-Neumannian approach. Also we
> have the final absorbers, Phipps's field detectors, required in the
> Wheeler-Feynman classical action at a distance electrodynamics in which
> the EM field as an independent dynamical system is completely
> eliminated! Phipps's idea of vd is reminiscent of that.
Jack, I have nothing against the idea of sinks, Understand me.
In fact, in EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory) that I am guilty
of developing, it is SINKS that collapse wave function and are
responsible for for potential becoming actual. But -as always -
DENSITY of sinks should enter the equations, not only their
VELOCITY. I do not say that sinks are not good or irrelevant.
What I say is:
either
a) equation 4.39 is wrong
or
b) Phipps interpretation of vd as "velocity of sinks" is wrong
> Ok here is something else to consider. What about the causal light cone
> structure of classical general relativity required for the
> Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems at the core of black hole physics?
> We picture a light cone at each point in space-time even if there is no
> actual point source of light there. So it seems to me you have a double
> standard assigning more virtual reality to sources than to sinks.
Light cones are part of space-time structure (they define what we call
a "conformal structure") Light cones must be EVERYWHERE. If you ask
a question: what would be Maxwell equations in the region of space
where there are no light cones, you will not get any answer.....
Well, not necessarily so.... Kiehn would answer that the equations
are dF=0, dG=j, but he would be silent if you would continue
by asking "and what is the relation between F and G".
I may have a different way of answering this question, but this is
no an issue. The issue is that according to the standard theory
light cones are everywhere - they come from solving of Einstein field
equations. And when we encounter singularities where light cones go
crazy .... well, then we remove this region of space-time from our
considerations and we hope that adding quantum effects will smooth
out this bad behavior. But you know all of this....
> This
> comes, perhaps from the prejudice of retarded causality of only past
> causes and future effects. I mean it's OK to imagine a point source of
> light at each and every space-time event even though its not really
> there. But it's not OK to imagine a field detector at each space-time
> point even though it's not really there?
I think I answered this already. If Phipps would say: sinks are
EVERYWHERE. They are part of the space-time structure. They
are ETHER, and ether is all pervading... That would be a different story
Then I would ask: and what are the equations that ether needs to
obey to? But Phipps says, these are just "sinks".
> There is another point. We do have vacuum polarization charge
> fluctuations at every point in space-time. So perhaps they act as albeit
> very weak "field detector" since there is a tiny probability for photons
> to scatter off them? However,
> "for free photons or for traveling electromagnetic waves in empty
> space, there is no vacuum polarization effect that depends linearly on
> the electromagnetic field." Sakurai p. 283 "Advanced Quantum Mechanics".
> What about standing wave EM modes in a nanometer-sized quantum dot
> cavity for example?
Now we are talking about quantum effects. I do agree that quantum effects,
vacuum polarization etc can change Maxwell equations. But we are
discussing classical electromagnetic field and not quantum
electrodynamics (which would open a Pandora box full of sneaky
infinities)
Best,
ark
***************
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Date sent: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:28:37 -0400
On 25 Oct 99, at 18:01, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>
> Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I agree that there IS a problem with our imagining that that there is
> time
> and space. That there is "time" even if there are no clocks. I agree
> that there is such a problem and I agree that Phipps was trying to
> discuss and to deal with this problem. But: Wheeler writes Einstein
> field equations in its standard form - even when there is no matter
> and no sources and no test particles. Matter tells space how to curve.
> Good. When there is no matter - space is flat (or of constant curvature
> if
> you have cosmological term).
>
>
>
> [Jack]
>
>
> Yes but he derives the very concept of curvature from the tidal forces
> on pairs of test particles = sinks = field detectors in Phipps's sense.
No, no, no. He did not derive curvature. He he shows that curvature
(or at leas part of the curvature) has a direct physical meaning -
if you put test particles there. But, notice, these must be test
particles. They must obey geodesic equations, but they do not
enter field equations (otherwise the problem would become insoluble).
> No. The only similar thing in Einstein field equations is that if
> connection
> coefficients are zero in one frame, they become non-zero in accelerated
> frame. But with Phipps we have this phenomenon for uniform motion, not
> for accelerated.
>
>
>
> [Jack]
>
>
> So what? Of course, if there were a preferred frame of absolute rest the
> problem you raise would vanish. Vigier says there is such a frame and
> that it is that frame in which the observed cosmologically redshifted
> black body photons are isotropic. vd is then the velocity relative to
> that frame.
My problem would not disappear. Even if there is a preferred frame, we
are not obliged to use it. In fact Phipps wants to write his equations
in another Galilean frame, and he postulates certain transformation
laws. And also he gives interpretation for this extra term (as velocity
of sinks). What I say is this: it makes no sense. Either the extra term is
wrong, or it must not be interpreted as velocity of sinks.
>
This is also the frame in which the quantum potential Q acts
> instantly. However, in Phipps's neo-Galilean replacement of Einstein's
> clock synchronization, all properly synchronized frames have absolute
> simultaneity with no length contraction. There is still time-dilation.
> There is also relative velocity nonreciprocity which is the most
> counterintuitive idea Phipps proposes. The strength in the Phipps
> Alternative is that it fits quantum theory's nonlocality much better
> than Einstein's special relativity with its relative simultaneity and
> length contraction.
For this you do need Phipps. Take the old ether theory, either from Lorentz
(btw. Dirac liked it too). You have preferred frame. You know what vd
is: velocity of ether. I will not ask my question "what are the
field equations in the region with no ether?" - because
it is part of the assumptions that e-m field is just kind of
stresses with ether. I would have nothing against this ....
well, I would have something, but of a completely different
nature. But Phipps is not saying: "vd is velocity of ether,
ether is everywhere, I am reviving old ether theory, I love it!"
Phipps is saying vd is velocity of "sinks" or "detectors".
What I say is: it can not be true.
> > Indeed, you have destroyed theoretical physics.
No. I am trying to find the truth.
> [Jack]
>
>
> What is a reasonable interpretation? Suppose we use Maxwell's equations
> in integral form. We then replace local point divergences with vector
> field flux integrals around closed surfaces, and we replace local point
> curls with line integrals of vector fields around closed loops. So
> imagine that these closed surfaces and loops are distorting, translating
> and rotating in time. This would require something like vd also.
Something "like" - YES. But Phipps 4.39b+ Phipps interpretation
of vd as "velocity of sinks" = NO.
> [Jack]
>
>
> OK, I need to reread Phipps on this when I can find the time. If Phipps
> does not have an immediate compelling refutation of your point, you may
> have found the fatal flaw in his theory saving Einstein, saving tensors
> and spinors, a victory of covariance over invariance etc. However, my
> intuition says Phipp's idea to replace partial time derivatives by total
> time derivatives is a very good one. We will see.
It may be a good one, but not a very good one. As we got a problem
there. And Phipps himself is not helping us, because, as he says,
he needs "to get with rest of his life." So, probably the issue is of
no importance to him. Probably, I guess, he does not believe
his re-formulation of Maxwell equations is right. Or he KNOWS
that it is not right, and he knows that it is a trap or a dead end,
because he knows that there IS a completely different
approach that works.... These are all my guesses based on
poor evidence, based upon my intuition. But, Jack, you also
use intuition:
"my
> intuition says Phipp's idea to replace partial time derivatives by total
> time derivatives is a very good one. "
> [Jack]
>
>
> That is a very good problem to think about. I am very interested in that
> problem. You have asked a very important fundamental question of
> principle that Phipps was at least partially approaching. Maybe you need
> to use category theory and be free of continuity, differentiability
> etc.?
I don't think so. We need to go beyond what we have now, but
we do not have to go too far. Yes, we can play with categories and functors,
and Kuntz algebras and all that - I was guilty myself of going into this
kind of stuff - but we loose physics out of sight completely. It becomes
a game of its own.
> [Jack]
>
>
> OK. I see your objection and we need to think about it. Remember however
> a couple of points. The issue of the "sinks" brings in quantum ideas of
> backward causation as in Huw Price's book and in Cramer's transactional
> interpretation of QM and Aharonov's "double state vector" model in which
> future and past collide to create the present quantum eigenvalues in a
> "collapse" measurement if you buy that von-Neumannian approach. Also we
> have the final absorbers, Phipps's field detectors, required in the
> Wheeler-Feynman classical action at a distance electrodynamics in which
> the EM field as an independent dynamical system is completely
> eliminated! Phipps's idea of vd is reminiscent of that.
Jack, I have nothing against the idea of sinks, Understand me.
In fact, in EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory) that I am guilty
of developing, it is SINKS that collapse wave function and are
responsible for for potential becoming actual. But -as always -
DENSITY of sinks should enter the equations, not only their
VELOCITY. I do not say that sinks are not good or irrelevant.
What I say is:
either
a) equation 4.39 is wrong
or
b) Phipps interpretation of vd as "velocity of sinks" is wrong
> Ok here is something else to consider. What about the causal light cone
> structure of classical general relativity required for the
> Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems at the core of black hole physics?
> We picture a light cone at each point in space-time even if there is no
> actual point source of light there. So it seems to me you have a double
> standard assigning more virtual reality to sources than to sinks.
Light cones are part of space-time structure (they define what we call
a "conformal structure") Light cones must be EVERYWHERE. If you ask
a question: what would be Maxwell equations in the region of space
where there are no light cones, you will not get any answer.....
Well, not necessarily so.... Kiehn would answer that the equations
are dF=0, dG=j, but he would be silent if you would continue
by asking "and what is the relation between F and G".
I may have a different way of answering this question, but this is
no an issue. The issue is that according to the standard theory
light cones are everywhere - they come from solving of Einstein field
equations. And when we encounter singularities where light cones go
crazy .... well, then we remove this region of space-time from our
considerations and we hope that adding quantum effects will smooth
out this bad behavior. But you know all of this....
> This
> comes, perhaps from the prejudice of retarded causality of only past
> causes and future effects. I mean it's OK to imagine a point source of
> light at each and every space-time event even though its not really
> there. But it's not OK to imagine a field detector at each space-time
> point even though it's not really there?
I think I answered this already. If Phipps would say: sinks are
EVERYWHERE. They are part of the space-time structure. They
are ETHER, and ether is all pervading... That would be a different story
Then I would ask: and what are the equations that ether needs to
obey to? But Phipps says, these are just "sinks".
> There is another point. We do have vacuum polarization charge
> fluctuations at every point in space-time. So perhaps they act as albeit
> very weak "field detector" since there is a tiny probability for photons
> to scatter off them? However,
> "for free photons or for traveling electromagnetic waves in empty
> space, there is no vacuum polarization effect that depends linearly on
> the electromagnetic field." Sakurai p. 283 "Advanced Quantum Mechanics".
> What about standing wave EM modes in a nanometer-sized quantum dot
> cavity for example?
Now we are talking about quantum effects. I do agree that quantum effects,
vacuum polarization etc can change Maxwell equations. But we are
discussing classical electromagnetic field and not quantum
electrodynamics (which would open a Pandora box full of sneaky
infinities)
Best,
ark
****************
Date sent: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:16:06 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Send reply to:
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Tom Phipps {tephipps at pdnt.com>
Copies to: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Thanks Tom, this seems to correct Ark's point or rather to make it
vanish. It's been some months since I read your book and I have not had
time to go back to it to carefully answer Ark's point.
Tom Phipps wrote:
Hi, gents,
I had hoped by total surrender to get on with the rest of my life ...
but I feel obliged to reply to a direct question:
Looking at pages 123-124
eq 4.16
jd = -rho vd
rho is the source density
Therefore eq. 4.19b is harmless. Now this is off the top of my head and
I need to go back and review it all. What does Phipps say?
Eq. (4.16) on page 123 is part of a discussion of the equation of
continuity -- not of the field equations. The discussion leading up to
Eq. (4.22) is aimed at showing that an invariant formulation (using
total rather than partial time derivative) is advisable for the
continuity equation as well as for the field equations. (This may be
well known in fluid dynamics, but I know nothing of that discipline.)
The "correct" invariant form of the continuity equation is given in Eq.
(4.28). Since the continuity equation applies to any collection of
point charges or continuous distribution of electricity, it applies also
to sources in Maxwell's or Hertz's equations.
Thus, although I pictured two different types of "detector" in the two
cases of field equations and continuity equation, if you make allowance
for this difference (field detector in one case, charge or charge
density detector in the other), the same equations, (4.16), (4.17) hold
formally in both cases. Actually, the two types of detector can be
considered to coalesce or coincide, because they both interrogate what
is happening at the "field point" at the moment of observation. (It's
true ... think about it. We often think that Maxwell's current density
j refers to what is happening all through space. Not so. It concerns
only what goes on at the field point! The field point then may get
integrated over space.)
Incidentally, a preferred (by me) proof of field equation invariance can
be found in a number of more modern places, such as p. 47 of issue #17
of Infinite Energy. Another place is in the book Advanced
Electromagnetism, ed. by T. W. Barrett and D. M. Grimes. That's more
readable because of fewer misprints.
Best, Tom.
--
"Backed by the Supreme Authority
We command a large majority."
Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan
http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/ {http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/>
****************
Date sent: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:19:10 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Subject: Re: advice for a student
Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
>
>
> Jack,
>
> My question: what would be the equation 4.39b in vacuum, with no sinks,
> remains without answer. If you answer: put vd=0 - it is not a good answer.
> Because of formula 4.19b .
>
>
>
> I am not questioning INVARIANCE of the equations.
> Sure, they are invariant, because they have been
> made so. In an artificial way you can make any
> equation invariant under any transformation you wish.
> This is not my problem. My problem is, which
> I repeat and repeat and repeat again is this:
>
> either
>
> a) equation 4.39 is wrong
> or
> b) Phipps interpretation of vd as "velocity of sinks" is wrong
>
> Tom's answer, dealing with continuity equation, is not addressing
> this problem at all.
>
> ark
[Jack]
OK I see your point. It's a good one. You may have refuted Phipps. But we need
to think about it a lot more! Good work Ark.
************************************************************************
Date sent: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:41:40 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: "Thomas E Phipps, Jr"
Subject: Update on Phipps
My presentation of The Phipps Alternative on
http://www.stardrive.org/title.shtml
{http://www.stardrive.org/title.shtml>
has been considerable toned down reflecting the excellent recent
critical analysis of Arkadiusz Jadczyk. However, the issue is far from
settled. There is also the Sommerfeld formula that has a term like
Phipps's vd that reflects motion and distortion of the surface elements
in the flux integrals over closed surfaces that the curls of the fields
come from.
The matter is not settled of course.
***********************************************************************
Date sent: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:30:13 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Organization: Advanced Intelligence Agency
To: John Walker
Copies to: "Thomas E Phipps, Jr"
Subject: Re: Phipps' theory: Thomas precession
Thanks! Forwarded for discussion.
John Walker wrote:
> One of the four experiments cited in T. Phipps' "Heretical
> Verities"[1] in support of his view of space and time is an
> experiment he performed himself in the early 1970's,
> described on pages 265-273 (Chapter 7, Section 3) which
> showed no evidence for the Thomas precession predicted by
> special and general relativity for an observer on a rotating
> platform.
>
> In general relativity, the total precession \dot{\Omega>
> observed by an observer on a uniform rotating platform can
> be decomposed into:
>
> \dot{\Omega> = \dot{\Omega> _{Thomas> +
> \dot{\Omega> _{de Sitter> +
> \dot{\Omega> _{Lense-Thirring>
>
> where Thomas precession is due to non-commutativity of
> unaligned Lorentz transformations, de Sitter precession is
> due to the gravitational acceleration and local space-time
> curvature, and Lense-Thirring precession due to "frame
> dragging" by the angular momentum (if any) of mass inside
> the path of the observer.
>
> In the weak field case, the Lense-Thirring effect is
> minuscule (220 milliarcseconds per year on a pendulum
> at the Earth's pole). Heroic efforts like the Stanford
> Gravity Probe B satellite and analyses of LAEGOS
> satellite data and accretion disc observations may provide
> evidence for this term, but it can be neglected in
> test involving the first two.
>
> Ciufolini and Wheeler's "Gravitation and Inertia"[2] section
> 3.4.3, pages 128-138 discusses experimental tests of de
> Sitter precession which subtract precession with respect to
> distant quasars measured by VLBI from that in the Earth-Moon
> frame determined from lunar retroreflector ranging. The
> results are consistent with the predictions of general
> relativity for the de Sitter precession to within 10%.
> Subsequent to the 1987 paper by Berotti, Ciufolini, and
> Bender[3], other analyses based solely on lunar ranging
> data[4] (thus involving more assumptions about the planetary
> frame) claim 1% precision in measurement of the de Sitter
> precession.
>
> Now note that the de Sitter precession incorporates
> a term equal to -1/2 of the Thomas precession, due to the
> same properties of the Lorentz transformation. If the
> Thomas precession is, in fact, zero or any value other
> than that predicted by special and general relativity,
> the de Sitter precession should also differ and the value
> determined by subtracting the VLBI and lunar ranging data
> should be different from SR and GR predictions since
> the Thomas precession does not cancel in the two terms.
>
> I haven't done the math to determine whether negation of the
> Thomas precession is inconsistent with the experimental
> results, nor the algebra to see whether Phipps' kinematics
> and/or electrodynamics cancels the results in the null
> experiments cited above. But this seems something
> accessible to calculation and another potentially
> falsifiable (in Popper's sense) prediction of Phipps'
> theory.
>
> Precession experiments are particularly interesting in
> the present context since, as Ciufolini and Wheeler
> point out on pages 136-137, they can constrain the
> presence of torsion in connections.
>
> References:
>
> 1. Phipps, Thomas E. Heretical Verities: Mathematical
> Themes in Physical Description. Urbana, Illinois:
> Classic Non-Fiction Library, 1986. ISBN 0-9606540-0-7.
>
> 2. Ciufolini, Ignazio and John Archibald Wheeler.
> Gravitation and Inertia Princeton: Princeton University
> Press, 1995. ISBN 0-691-03323-4.
>
> 3. B. Berotti, I. Ciufolini, and P.L. Bender, New test of
> general relativity: measurement of de Sitter geodetic
> precession rate for lunar perigee, Physical Review Letters
> 58:1062 (1987).
>
> 4. J.O. Dickey et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: a continuing
> legacy of the Apollo program, Science 265:482 (1994).