Counterfactual computation

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 30 May 2019 20:17:45 +0100) it happened "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in
<9sqdnWLa_PjBsW3BnZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>:

The MMX experiment and its relation to SR is subtle.

Einstein introduced the idea of photons. If light was emitted as any ball
would be, relative to its source, then the MMX would obviously be NULL as
the source and observer were moving together.

So, the question is why did Einstein take the one key property that the
Aether gives, namely independence of the emitted speed from the source
velocity, that is bits of Aether vibrate hitting other bits of Aether
propagating an effect, at the characteristic speed of the medium, yet throw
the Aether itself away?

It is crucial to appreciate what Einstein actually said.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies:

"These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and
consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the
Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "luminiferous
ćther" will be proved to be superfluous in so far, as according to the
conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a "space
absolutely at rest" endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate
a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take
place. "

Its the "superfluous" bit that is important. He doesn't say that it doesn't
exist. For the following reason.

Assuming the the equations of SR are correct, then those same equations show
that that if the Aether were actually there, they would explain why the
failure to detect such an Aether in the MMX experiment would occur. SR says
that the SR length contraction would result in a NULL result just as LET
would, despite an Aether being there.

I address that here:
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/space-time-sanity.html

Sorry for late reply, needed some sleep and am reading that link now.
I largely agree here.

e.g

Einstein specifically stated:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypothesis (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so
clearly makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is
directly declaring here explicitly, that he not not going to offer an
explanation, for example, a hypothesis as to why "sources could immediately
find a common speed". However, there is no suggestion or implication that
such a physical process does not exist.


Einstein, apparently, had a deep reason to hold on to independence of source
velocity, however, that bit that is not really the problem, its independence
of observer that is, although either one can be used to derive the other on
the assumption of all uniform motion being equivalent.

Independence of source velocity is a property of all wave motion, so in
itself, no big deal, if there is a medium.

Now consider a sun firing light at you. You travel into the sun and measure
its velocity. You now travel faster, yet you still measure the same
velocity.

The only way that can happen in the conventional universe is if your
measuring instrument properties are dependant on that velocity. This
directly implies that there is some sort of reference frame to which that
velocity is referenced.

Yes, LET comes to mind, Lorentz Ether Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Just a step aside,
what I found interesting (now going back to the nineties of previous century) was
Le Sage theory of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

I always look for a physical system, else I cannot understand what is going on.
So in those days, with my very simple computer (what was it? Z80 system I designed),
I wrote a simulation for a number of bodies and Le Sage like particles,
just to see if the results were anything like what you have with gravity.
Le Sage proposed many particles traveling at high speed in all directions,
where you get some 'shadowing' by say planets etc and a resulting force.
The simulation I wrote worked!
Now that was at least some mechanism, question then arises: Where do those particles come from?'
and 'are those the same all over the known universe, or are there places where those particles are less frequent,
have less density, and what would (if those particles are of subatomic size) look atoms like if that compressing force
_and here we go_ was not present?.' Larger atoms (pendulum) slower clocks in Le Sage shadowed areas, clocks run slower
in those shadowed areas near earth?
Not saying that idea is correct, but .. some tests have shown that gravity has the same speed as light,
could a LS particle be the medium, the ocean that light waves propagate in?
Now I have connected gravity and the other forces, where Einstein failed.
Again, these have been my thoughts in those years, think I mentioned that several times in newsgroups.
And then there is the mathematical stuff.
Indeed electricity without electrons makes little sense,
that broke down with the Fleming experiment a current in vacuum (in a vacuum tube).
Electrons
We really need a mechanism.
We are rather big, and can only see so far into the ever smaller world,
we now know about atoms and other elementary particles, but what if you go smaller and smaller...

It could well be if the previous holds true, that much of todays (2019) physics about what the universe is, big bang,
is completely wrong.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

PS
In a Le Sage theory 'singularities' cannot exist.
There is a point where all LS particles are stopped,m absorbed / reflected whatever.
Every time a mamathecision cries 'Singularity'
I know it / he / she did a divide by zero somewhere.
In nature something always gives way (First Law Of Panteltje).

That also means that inside what we now call 'black hole',
structure of matter may be very different.

The second thing is I proposed long ago in sci.physics that perhaps
the Le Sage particles could originate in processes in stars.
Somebody then remarked 'that can never work as the universe would fly apart'.

Few years later it was found the universe is ever faster expanding...
Dark matter, dark energy.

The old Le Sage theory can explain a lot without a lot of hocus-pokus.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 31 May 2019 15:52:54 +0100) it happened "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in
<2YudnbSYUuJUomzBnZ2dnUU78Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>:

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message news:qcqdp7$u7c$1@dont-email.me...


Just a step aside,
what I found interesting (now going back to the nineties of previous
century) was
Le Sage theory of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

I always look for a physical system, else I cannot understand what is going
on.
So in those days, with my very simple computer (what was it? Z80 system I
designed),
I wrote a simulation for a number of bodies and Le Sage like particles,
just to see if the results were anything like what you have with gravity.
Le Sage proposed many particles traveling at high speed in all directions,
where you get some 'shadowing' by say planets etc and a resulting force.
The simulation I wrote worked!
.Now that was at least some mechanism, question then arises: Where do those
particles come from?'
and 'are those the same all over the known universe, or are there places
where those particles are less frequent,
have less density, and what would (if those particles are of subatomic
size) look atoms like if that compressing force
_and here we go_ was not present?.' Larger atoms (pendulum) slower clocks
in Le Sage shadowed areas, clocks run slower
in those shadowed areas near earth?
Not saying that idea is correct, but .. some tests have shown that gravity
has the same speed as light,
could a LS particle be the medium, the ocean that light waves propagate in?
Now I have connected gravity and the other forces, where Einstein failed.
Again, these have been my thoughts in those years, think I mentioned that
several times in newsgroups.
And then there is the mathematical stuff.
Indeed electricity without electrons makes little sense,
that broke down with the Fleming experiment a current in vacuum (in a
vacuum tube).
Electrons
We really need a mechanism.
We are rather big, and can only see so far into the ever smaller world,
we now know about atoms and other elementary particles, but what if you go
smaller and smaller...

It could well be if the previous holds true, that much of todays (2019)
physics about what the universe is, big bang,
is completely wrong.

Its pretty clear that the Le Sage model is incorrect.

Not so sure about that, not even if Feyman could not hack it...

However, there is a
particle model that is a standard result in Physics.

This is the Spin 2, graviton particle exchange model. It, essentially, gets
the same equations as the Einstein Feld Equations. The model explains "how
it can be shown any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force
indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would
couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational
interactions do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Yes, but if you read all the way down to
'Difficulties and outstanding issues'

then you see plenty of problems, only string theory would solve.
And as I mentioned before, string.. is a creaton by mathemagicians.
Is there any sort of testing possible for string theory?

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message news:qcqdp7$u7c$1@dont-email.me...

Just a step aside,
what I found interesting (now going back to the nineties of previous
century) was
Le Sage theory of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

I always look for a physical system, else I cannot understand what is going
on.
So in those days, with my very simple computer (what was it? Z80 system I
designed),
I wrote a simulation for a number of bodies and Le Sage like particles,
just to see if the results were anything like what you have with gravity.
Le Sage proposed many particles traveling at high speed in all directions,
where you get some 'shadowing' by say planets etc and a resulting force.
The simulation I wrote worked!

..Now that was at least some mechanism, question then arises: Where do those
particles come from?'

and 'are those the same all over the known universe, or are there places
where those particles are less frequent,
have less density, and what would (if those particles are of subatomic
size) look atoms like if that compressing force
_and here we go_ was not present?.' Larger atoms (pendulum) slower clocks
in Le Sage shadowed areas, clocks run slower
in those shadowed areas near earth?
Not saying that idea is correct, but .. some tests have shown that gravity
has the same speed as light,
could a LS particle be the medium, the ocean that light waves propagate in?
Now I have connected gravity and the other forces, where Einstein failed.
Again, these have been my thoughts in those years, think I mentioned that
several times in newsgroups.
And then there is the mathematical stuff.
Indeed electricity without electrons makes little sense,
that broke down with the Fleming experiment a current in vacuum (in a
vacuum tube).
Electrons
We really need a mechanism.
We are rather big, and can only see so far into the ever smaller world,
we now know about atoms and other elementary particles, but what if you go
smaller and smaller...

It could well be if the previous holds true, that much of todays (2019)
physics about what the universe is, big bang,
is completely wrong.

Its pretty clear that the Le Sage model is incorrect. However, there is a
particle model that is a standard result in Physics.

This is the Spin 2, graviton particle exchange model. It, essentially, gets
the same equations as the Einstein Feld Equations. The model explains "how
it can be shown any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force
indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would
couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational
interactions do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html