Math Imitating Life

These are going to just some comments and references for a future article.


Here is something by Albert Einstein to wonder about.

Relativity, The Special and General Theory


In the first section of this book, Einstein makes the following points:

  1. Truth is relative to one’s experience. 
  2. If the experience is limited then one’s “truth” is limited.
  3. Euclidean Geometry is based on limited experience. 
  4. How do we consider a straight line? How do we consider distance?
  5. We assume locations in space to exist as if on a rigid body.


Points from Section II:

  1. Let’s use a “rigid” Cartesian Coordinate System, and a rigid body as a unit, to describe positions in space.
  2. But, since optical observations are involved, let’s also take into account the properties of the propagation of light in determining the measurements.


Points from Section III:

  1. Regarding “motion in space,” there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference. 
  2. The finiteness of the velocity of propagation of light would influence the perception of change in position with time.


Points from Section IV:

  1. A system of co-ordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is called a “Galileian system of co-ordinates.” 
  2. We cannot use a system of coordinates rigidly attached to earth, because, in that system of coordinates, stars would appear to be moving in a circle in violation of the law of inertia.
  3. We assume a Galileian systems of co-ordinates, which are rigid but not attached to earth. 


Points from Section V:

  1. Principle of Relativity: Natural phenomena run their course according to exactly the same general laws with respect to all Galileian co-ordinate systems that are translating uniformly, and not rotating or acceleratingrelative to each other.
  2. We may assume, as our body of reference, a Galileian coordinate system K0, in which natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner.
  3. We may then assume K0 to be “absolutely at rest,” and all other Galileian systems K “in motion.”
  4. The “motion” of Galileian systems K shall contribute to their diminished simplicity, or increased complexity, of the formulation of natural laws.


Points from Section VI:

  1. The theorem of the addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics, as we shall see, does not hold in reality.


Points from Section VII:

  1. The velocity of light of any wave-length is constant in vacuum. It does not depend on the motion of the body emitting the light.
  2. The theorem of the addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics does not hold for the velocity of light, which remains the same with respect to all bodies of reference.
  3. This result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V, because it would appear that different laws of propagation of light must necessarily hold for different coordinate systems.
  4. It seems that the principle of relativity must be rejected because the theoretical investigations into electromagnetic phenomena, leads conclusively to the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo.
  5. In reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, as shown in the special theory of relativity, by an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space.


Points from Section VIII:

  1. “Time” should be defined as a measure in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event.


Points from Section IX:

  1. Events that are simultaneous with reference to one co-ordinate system are not necessarily simultaneous with reference to another co-ordinate system because of the finite velocity of light.
  2. Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time.


Points from Section X:

  1. Owing to the consideration of simultaneity, the measure of the same distance from two different coordinate systems, which are in relative motion to each other, is not necessarily the same .



There is no loss of energy in a pure standing wave. In other words, the energy would be conserved. We may then look at this physical universe as an example of pure standing wave, because energy is conserved in this universe.


The most fundamental phenomenon in this universe seems to be a back-and-forth motion around a reference value. Call it a vibration that creates waves; but this phenomenon seems to underlie all other phenomena.


Light seems to be tied to the vacuum of the space itself rather than to anything existing in that space. In other words, light does not seem to travel relative to anything in space. The velocity of light is the same regardless of the motion of the frame of reference that is used.


The velocity of light is finite . Einstein used this fact to query the very basis of perception on cosmic scales.

At atomic scales, light seems to condense as standing waves instead of reflect. It seems to be the fractal iteration of this condensation that appears as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. This makes perception at atomic scales questionable too. Our perception seems to be limited to the middle band.

The frequency and wave-length of light corresponds in such a way that the velocity of light always remains the same. That is the basis of confirming that the universe is expanding using the redshift of the Doppler effect. We apply the same argument to the shift in the pitch of the sound of whistle of a passing train. This brings up the following questions:

(1) The velocity of sound is constant with respect to a medium, such as air. Would we perceive the same shift in the pitch of sound if the air is not all displaced and moved around  by the passing train?

(2) The velocity of light is constant in space. Can we treat space as a “medium” made up of not the usual material, but dark matter perhaps!

(3) Does this dark matter get disturbed by passing light, similar to the way air gets disturbed by the passing train?

(4) How does this dark matter appear to behave at atomic dimensions?

Note: This seems to be looking at the old ether theory again.


Counting goes up to infinity; then that collection of infinity may be regarded as “one.” For example, Infinity of fundamental particles may take the shape of an apple. We may then count apples. Not all apples will have the same number of fundamental particles, but each would be regarded as a unit apple.

The counting to infinity may be repeated with this new “one.”  This procedure may continue without limit. This procedure may be reversed without limit also.

This raises the question, “Do we have a rigid relationship between the “numbers” used to account for the atomic phenomena and the numbers used to account for the cosmic phenomena?”


The following is the basic assumption underlying Euclidean Geometry, which was pointed out by Einstein:

Euclidean geometry assumes that points, directions and distances behave as if they are associated with a rigid body. We are conditioned to think this way because the rigid body of earth provides our frame of reference.

But the question remains, “Does the “fabric” of space behaves like a rigid body, and if not, then do the laws of Euclidean Geometry still apply?”


Here is a very interesting comment on mechanical brain and free will by Alan Turing (AMT/B/5 Image 5):


[To be continued…]


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM

    My! How you have reversed on dark matter! Beautiful, you must have been studying on this quite a bit. I would appreciate it if you would develop your ideas a little more when writing them down so I don’t have to dig and guess at your language which if it has a flaw is cryptic. What you say may be totally useful but if you would develop the ideas a little more I will appreciate it.

    Is “math imitating life?” I think maybe so — keep reading. And the Doppler Effect? Because of the red-shift the assumption was made that the universe is expanding. Now pay attention to this as it is a different twist on the Doppler Effect:




    Let’s call it my “Russian Box Theory of Everything.”

    You read it here first on Vinaire’s Blog.

    • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 6:50 AM

      My ideas came while reading the book RELATIVITY by Albert Einstein. You may find the e-book version here:

      I have yet to finish reading this book for complete understanding.


    • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 7:33 AM

      Your point about a shrinking universe (through condensation) is well taken.

      Please continue. 🙂


      • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 1:24 PM

        I found a few more words to describe my Russian nesting box “reality.”

        What if the universe is neither shrinking nor expanding in the sense of moving but in essence is being fractaly iterated. In this model motion as such might be only a product of perception of an observation point.

        The point of view could “move” by incremental quantum jumps cycling by the Planck second or so.

        I am giddy from having these thoughts as I see room in this theory to solve several issues that we have discussed from onenes to syncronization.

      • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM

        An alternative idea is as follows. Let’s take a long object and strike it at one end. That would create a shock (deformation) wave traveling fron the struck end toward the other end. The overall size of the object is not changing. The shock (deformation) is local. It is deforming and undeforming in form of a wave.

        This means that the “redshift” may occur due to local deformation and may not necessarily mean that the universe is expanding.


        • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM

          That is good too. Either way, we are considering the possibility of a completely different model of the universe. It’s as different as the Copernican model is from the Ptolemaic. I don’t gravitate toward it because it is different, I gravitate toward it because the existing model of the universe has been stuck “on high-center” for about a hundred years now and something needs to give. These ideas — this new direction entertains “your hope wave” that this next layer might yield to our probe.

      • vinaire  On January 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

        In Einstien’s model motion is relative. In other words, motion may be seen as rest from another oordinate system.

        In chapter V of his book (see the article above). Einstein’s decribes “real motion” in terms of diminishing simplicity and increasing complexity.

        This is really interesting to me.

  • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 1:50 AM

    0. Another question of interest is “where” does the iteration occur?
    1. Does it begin from a point and expel? Such as silk from a worm or spider.
    2. Or possibly does it iterate from the leading edges of the fractal layering upon itself? Such as in the example of a tree growing or ice crystal forming.

    It occurs in Nature both ways.

    • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 7:19 AM

      I have added the following to the notes above.

      “The velocity of light is finite . Einstein used this fact to query the very basis of perception on cosmic scales.

      “At atomic scales, light seems to condense as standing waves instead of reflect. It seems to be the fractal iteration of this condensation that appears as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. This makes perception at atomic scales questionable too. Our perception seems to be limited to the middle band.”

      These notes are going to be developing continually. It seems that certain iterations of this condensation of light are stable, but others are unstable. Some of these unstable iterations of condensation seems to appear as transient fundamental particles during scientific experiments.

      Planck’s constant seems to be derived from stable configurations. It does not necessarily determine the smallest unit of time or length.

      Fractaly, this iteration should proceed infinitely towards becoming larger and also towards becoming smaller. So, I doubt if one can determine the starting point.

      Any point may be used as the starting (or, reference) point. Please see

      Space, Time & Knowledge


      • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM


        Yes – both larger and smaller with ambiguous starting point. I have no bias about this being either way or both. Planck’s constant? Just useful language for meaning a really short duration. I am thrilled to brainstorm, but when it comes time to calculate, I will have to bow out. Nevertheless, possibly I might visualize some useful bit.

      • vinaire  On January 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        I see “short” and “long” as relative too. It then becomes the matter of surrounding context (which includes the viewpoint) that contributes to the definition of a phenomenon.

        There is nothing totally isolated.


        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:02 AM

          Agreed. I find that all phenomena are both relative to their frame of reference and need a frame of reference to be discussed in a cogent manner.

          Like your example of a line section with either side of the line extending infinitely beyond the line section.

  • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 1:57 AM

    The more I look at your post and check your links, the better I like your post. There are some very good ideas to toy with.

    Re-reading Turing’s remark about free will vs determinism, about the “impossibility” of knowing whether free will is illusion or “real” made me curious to ask the question whether or not this free will vs determinism is even a valid issue.

    If it is so hard to state without the seeming paradoxes, then might we be looking right down a blind alley? Maybe there is a better and more pertinent question?

    • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 7:25 AM

      We are discovering more about the “unknowable,” aren’t we?

      The “unknowable” is postulated simply to warn, “DO NOT REST AFTER DISCOVERING A STABLE DATUM. THERE IS NO LAST WORD.”


      • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 9:53 PM

        haha – noooo.

      • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM

        The knowable will never be unknowable no matter the obfuscation! We only need to look closer with an open mind.

        Conversely, the unknowable is a self-defeating theory for obvious reasons! haha – You are picking on me aren’t you?

        But your “warning” is quite good – not to rest after discovering a stable datum. This is a profound statement and a core belief of mine.

      • vinaire  On January 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM
          The “unknowable” is a carrot on the stick besides other considerations that might be attached to it.

          But attaching considerations doesn’t make the unknowable, knowable. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

          If you say so and if it is helpful to you to use this device, I am alright with that. I just have that piece of the mystery nailed in a way which is clear to me so prefer use other language for that which is out of sight.

          Nevertheless, we are very much in agreement on this scale and your use of the Unknowable does not put me off and I know what you mean when you use it.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 6:39 AM

        Just to be clear, me calling it “unknowable” itself amounts to attaching a consideration to whatever is there.

        The point I have been making from the beginning is that we can only know the considerations that we attach to something. Anything beyond consideration cannot be known in itself simply because it is beyond consideration.

        It is mathematical.


    • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 7:36 AM

      To me, free will vs determinism is simply a display of relativism. There are no absolutes.


      • Chris Thompson  On January 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM

        Yes agree. Worrying about the proportions seems fruitless.

      • vinaire  On January 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

        Free will and determinism may be defined on the same scale.


        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM

          I think I understand what you are saying but if you would expound a bit on your reasons for this pairing, I would appreciate it.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 6:51 AM

        We can put good and evil on the same scale. Good at the top and evil at the bottom. Good and evil are actually defined by viewpoint. What is good for the hunter is evil for the duck.

        In fact, any dichotomy may be defined this way because they are two faces of the same coin. For example, survive-succumb may be put on the same scale.

        Same way, it seems to me that “Free will – Determinism” form a dichotomy. They be placed at the two opposite ends of the same scale. Now the following question arises in my mind.

        Can any such scale be looked upon as a circle, in which we may pick any point as our reference point?


        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:51 PM

          I have had this discussion many times and am open to corrections; however, I have found that rather than a circle turning back on itself that a helical coil or conical helical coil might also be a workable model.

          I have two reasons for this: 1. The fractal nature of my observations; and 2. The shortages of absolutes in this universe make travelling from point “A” and ultimately arriving at point “A” seem unlikely, which one would if using the circle model.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM

        I shall contemplate on what Alan Turing’s work is leading up to… that it is difficult to clearly differentiate between “free will and determinism,” when they are closely examined.

        It goes back to, “Can there be an intelligent computer?” I would say, “Yes, a mind is that computer.”

        I would say that the Scientology “thetan” is part of the mind. It is not separate from the mind. That is the idea that Buddhism holds.


  • vinaire  On January 28, 2012 at 8:10 AM

    Points from Chapter V of Einstein’s book on Relativity:

    (1) Principle of Relativity: The Law of Inertia holds simultaneously for objects in all Galileian co-ordinate systems that are not rotating or accelerating with respect to each other.

    (2) We may assume, as our body of reference, a Galileian coordinate system K0, in which natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner.

    (3) We may then assume K0 to be “absolutely at rest,” and all other Galileian systems K “in motion.”

    (4) The “motion” of Galileian systems K shall contribute to their diminished simplicity in the formulation of natural laws.


    It appears that Hubbard’s “static” in Scientology is closer to “K0” of Einstein than to the Vedic principle of “Brahma.”


    • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM

      Actually, Einstein broadens point (1) mentioned under Section V, so I have restated it properly.

      1. Principle of Relativity: Natural phenomena run their course according to exactly the same general laws with respect to all Galileian co-ordinate systems that, relative to each other, are uniformly translating, and not rotating or accelerating.

      What I am learning here is how to be more precise in my looking. What is most exciting to me right now is how Einstein is looking at “Time” in section VIII. It seems that “Space” and “Time” are not dependent on any Co-ordinate System. In other words, they stand as absolutes.

      The velocity of light c is being treated here as an absolute. The velocity involves both space and time.


  • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:37 AM

    Yes, the old ether theory again… I said as much months ago when bringing up the dark matter theories.

    “The woods are lovely dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep . . . ” — Frost

    It’s fun though, isn’t it Vinaire?

    • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 12:40 AM

      But dammit, I didn’t want to start another book. I am still working on the last three. And when you remark that you don’t fully understand Einstein’s treatise on relativity I only thought critically, “yeah, and neither did he.” But that is not very gracious of me, is it. . . . Ok, I put the book on hold and will pick it up tomorrow…. uhhhh.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 7:09 AM

        I have been jumping from books to books for quite some time. I am back to this book (Relativity) the third time. I have never finished this book in its entirety.

        But this time I am understanding it a lot better.


    • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM

      It is the old ether theory with a twist. This time the “ether” seems to be the space itself. 🙂

      Yes, it is a lot of fun. There is really something here to bite into. 🙂


      • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 1:06 PM

        Yes-yes — Why shouldn’t the very space not be fractal? I tend to get hung up on thinking of solid big chunks of things like planets or stars as creating the viewpoint of dimension, yet as I write that down the thought embarrasses me as being very short-sighted.

        If you would ask me if the “space” between things is empty or contains “nothing” I always would smile and say “no.” And yet my thinking, the mechanics continues to operate as though there is “nothing” there. This seems to uncover a false datum for me.

        I am going to try to be mindful of that “space between things is filled with things” and see if this doesn’t help my understanding get some traction.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 1:43 PM

        The more I contemplate the more it seems to me that energy is produced from condensation of space.

        So, the electromagnetic wave represents, in a way, the fabric of space.

        I don’t know if mathematics can be worked out for this, but I am getting deeper into mathematics to see if this can be done.

        This would also explain the “dark matter.”



      • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        Are you equating space and the electromagnetic wave to the wave-function as well as to each other?
        …and what does it explain about the dark matter?

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

        Study of wave-function is there on my list. I do not understand it fully.

        I am simply looking at space as rarefied energy, so much rarefied that it cannot be detected. The main property of space seems to be SEPARATION.

        So there is a chance that if space is understood fully it may replace the idea of dark matter to explain the imbalance of energy in this universe.


        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 2:56 PM

          Thanks for clearing that up.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 3:06 PM

          Please be careful with assumptions about separation being the cornerstone of space as this is both orthodox and conventional. Maybe there is a big juicy fallacy lurking in the background of the idea of “separation.” Wouldn’t that be a great find?

          At some point, new light will shine on the idea of entanglement. It seems that shining a light on entanglement will also shed light on our understanding of space. Anyways, keep an eye peeled and remember the carrot.

      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        By the way, see if you can locate the documentary called “THRIVE,” on the net and watch it. It is somewhat related to what we are discussing… extracting energy from pure space.

        I found this link for the trailer. I am sure there is a way to download the whole movie free.


      • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        Certainly! The “unknowable” keeps me in line. 🙂


  • vinaire  On January 30, 2012 at 7:45 AM

    In Section V, Einstein labels his Principle of Relativity to be “in a restricted sense,” apparently because he is not taking acceleration and rotation into account.

    Later Einstein took acceleration into account in his General Theory of Relativity, and explained gravitation. I would like to know if he ever took rotation into account, but I am not jumping ahead in this story yet.

    I wonder why rotation is everywhere in this universe.


    • Chris Thompson  On January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      I wonder this too. Years ago I read a paper on this. I am going to try to find it and compare it to this discussion.

  • vinaire  On January 31, 2012 at 7:38 AM

    I am still trying to work through the argument presented by Einstein in Section IX.

    (1) When we talk about the speed of light, we are talking about the speed at which the wavefront of light is advancing.
    (2) We become aware of an event when the wavefront emanating from that event hits us.
    (3) If the observer is stationary, the successive seconds of the event shall pass us him at the same rate as they are occuring at the source..
    (4) If the observer is moving toward the source, the successive seconds of the event shall pass him at a higher rate. It would be as if a movie has been speeded up.
    (5) If the observer is moving away from the source, the successive seconds of the event shall pass him at a lower rate. It would be as if a movie has been slowed down.



    • vinaire  On January 31, 2012 at 1:47 PM

      If a person is moving rapidly from event A towards event B, then it would seem to him that the event B is speeding up, while the event A is slowing down.

      If, say flashes of light at A and B appeared simultaneous to a person in a frame of reference at rest, they may not appear to be simulatneous to a person in a frame of reference in motion. Then the events may not be speeding up or slowing down uniformly. Some events may speed up and others may slow down, or there may be some effect in between. Actually, we may perceive time in a sort of 3-dimensions.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 12:47 AM

      No, not according to “the speed of light is constant for all frames of reference.” This is another counter-intuitive aspect of physics which maddens me. As little as I understand of this theory, the red- and blue-shifts would occur only. I absolutely positively must be wrong in my understanding.

      Does this “constant for all frames of reference” then mean that a “radio” communication sent to a vehicle travelling at the speed of light away from the source of the radio signal would or would not ever receive that transmission?

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 7:36 AM

      What I wrote does not violate the datum of the speed of light being constant. Imagine waves in a pond. These waves are there because of the disturbance in the surface of the water, which is moving at a constant speed because of the property of the water (surface tension, etc.). A point in the pond at rest would encounter a certain frequency of waves. But if that point moves one way or the other, this frequency would change.

      Time depends on such a frequency of light in space. There is a normal frequency of ‘seconds” arriving from some ongoing event at a point at rest. This frequency of “seconds” would change depending on the motion of that point in space.

      By postulating a constant velocity of light, we are postulating a certain disturbance in the fabric of space that does not depend on the movement of the source of disturbance. That disturbance is sort of absolute. Now we may travel through that disturbance at various speeds, but not faster than the speed at which that disturbance is moving at its wave front.

      Hope this makes sense.


      • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 8:16 PM

        It does help. So consider an emitter in motion as everything in this universe is. When light is emitted, it propagates outward from the point in space from which it was emitted without regard to the motion of the emitter.

        This is inspiring me to look in the direction of the quantum jump as the source of motion in a universe that may not be going anywhere. And light as a fractal construct iterated repeatedly. And the following might be an important aspect and that is that because the wave-particle is emitted as an iteration of mathematics, and because this iteration occurs every quantum jump, there is not a degradation of energy over the vast expanses of space as would be expected of an energy packet which diminishes by the moment. And possibly a photon can be an information packet without mass – possibly a code which has significance but relatively no mass.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM

      Information transmitted by light has a wave front. Such wave fronts leave from the source of information every second. Then after traveling some distance they arrive at the location of the observer.

      The speed of these wave fronts in space is constant. If the source is moving then the “second interval” in the vicinity of the source may not be the same second interval that is freely traveling in space. If the observer is moving, then again, then the “second interval” perceived by the observer may not be the same as the second interval freely traveling in space.

      There is no absolute motion. There is only the relative motion of the source and the observer. If both source and observer are moving in the same direction at the same speed, then it would be the same as both being at rest. The “second interval” shall be the same at both locations, no matter what value it has in free space.

      When both source and observer are approaching each other at constant speed, then the “second interval” shall be compressed. When both source and observer are moving away from each other at constant speed, then the “second interval” shall be elongated. The compression and elongation of the “seconds interval” shall depend on the relative velocity. It will have a different but constant value when freely traveling in space.

      The datum that the speed of light is constant simply means the the second interval is of a certain fixed length (a constant) when traveling from source to the observer freely in space.

      Does this make sense?



      • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM

        Yes. As I understand it, this compression is the reason for the red-, or blue-shift. The speed of light however remains constant no matter the frame of reference.

        I am not sure you understand this datum of constant c as I am expressing it. Light travels at one speed through space only. This is the first most important understanding that I have acquired about the constant speed of light, that its emission occurs as though from a fixed point in space no matter the velocity of the emitter. This is actually more important than the measurable speed by the observer. This understanding underpins my understanding of why the motion of the emitter neither detracts nor adds to the speed of the wave front as say tossing a ball from a moving vehicle adds or subtracts from the speed of the moving ball.

        An emitter travelling through space will never exceed the wave front that it emits. Also, the emitter will neither compress nor lengthen the wavelength of the light, this is a perception of the observer only caused by the motion of the observer with relation to the point of emission.

        To make the formulae balance, both space and time are modified to account for the constant speed of light.

        The constant speed of light provides a clue as to how photons or wave fronts are emitted. Our perception tells us that a flashlight “shines” when in fact, it pulses.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM

      The perception of the “seconds interval” is subjective. It would be difficult for the observer to perceive if the “seconds interval” has become compressed or elongated unless these two phenomena can somehow be experienced side by side together. Otherwise the mind can very well adjust to the change and perceive as if the “seconds interval” has remained constant.


      • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM

        Yes, I believe this is correct. The shifts in the intervals are responsible for color shifts in our perception.

        It would be a misunderstanding to confuse wave-length with velocity.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 3:20 PM

      I am looking at the electromagnetic wave more and more as a disturbance in space, or a ripple in space. The disturbance will travel at a constant velocity, dependent entirely on the physical properties of space.

      A disturbance traveling in a medium is very different from something else traveling in that medium. Compare sound traveling in air to an airplane traveling in air. The velocity of sound will depend entirely on the properties of air, and it would be constant. The velocity of plane would not depend entirely on the properties of air and it would be variable.

      So we should not be looking at light as something extraneous traveling in space. It has to be an integrated part of space. At the moment I cannot conceive of anything that could travel as fast as a disturbance in space, but if that is possible then it is quite possible that a “radio” communication sent to a vehicle traveling at the speed of light away from the source of the radio signal would never receive that transmission.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 1:23 AM

    It makes me happy to be in good communication with you Vinaire. I am happy to be working on understanding these same problems with you.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM

      Same here. You are a big help in this effort to penetrate the unknowable.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM

    This is math imitating life. Patiently watching this play while emptying one’s mind and allowing the concepts to simply flow is enlightening. There are concepts present that can help us in understanding atomic structure.

    • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 2:56 AM

      The scaling of this video would represent a ratio which is many many times larger than the known universe down to what would smaller than the smallest conception of particles. And this can be a first clue, that mathematics is able to describe both greater and smaller things than this universe has heretofore known. Does this mean that the physical universe can be a subset of mathematics?

      • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 3:02 AM

        One thing that this demonstrates to me is that “infinite” is not a description of what is “greater” than all that is known. Rather infinite is a concept which resides within the confines of the finite. Infinite does not refer to the Unknowable but to a scaling of the Knowable. The pivot for me of physics turns on “orders of magnitude” and depends utterly upon scaling.

      • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 3:39 PM

        Mathematics is an abstraction. That abstraction can encompass anything and more.


      • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM

        (1) Infinite, to me, represents “no limits” in any direction.
        (2) The unknowable is beyond “finite-infinite” dichotomy.
        (3) Yes, this dichotomy deals with the scaling of the knowable as you put it.
        (4) And that is a great way to describe physics… and mathematics.


    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 3:32 PM

      Watching this video just gave me this idea. As the camera goes deeper and deeper into the fractal design, patterns seem to appear out of nothing.

      This could be how the manifestations may appear in this universe.


      • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 7:15 PM

        Agreed. This also might represents a model for a “first cause.” For rather than a BIG bang, There could be simply an initial iteration. Explosions are relative to time. If we shorten the duration relative to the space consumed by an event we define an “explosion.” If we allow a large event enough time, it could be perceived as a bloom opening, and vice versa if we watch a flower open using only a few frames of time lapse photography, then it would appear to pop or explode open.

      • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM

        Then we are back to how the fractal is seeded in the first place. That “First Cause” is unknowable. We can only know the progression of the fractal. That discovery in itself would be humongous indeed.

        For the moment I would focus on the fractal only. At least we know it is a fractal, and that it is very simple at its core. I want to know what that seed is.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 12:02 AM

          You are too quick on the trigger to invoke the Unknowable, because we will never know this anyway. You are right to focus on the fractal iteration. There are great discoveries waiting. I do not believe at the seed of the fractal iteration that we will find anything except another layer of something.

          Your observation that as the observer zooms to higher magnification of the fractal graph that shapes appear “from nowhere” is quite a good observation and what I was going for. This device, the fractal zoom, has inspired many ideas for me which in turn give me the sensation of “making progress.”

          Your comments about “constant c” are fine, but I am fronting up to my misunderstandings about it and I am studying more before I comment further. I will be back to discuss this further when I am not talking like a jerk out of a fog of non-comprehension.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 3:09 AM

    Vin, Your idea of “rarified energy” is no problem if it turns out to be useful to help understand space. Because of fractal concepts, there may be limitless perfectly formed constructs at astonishingly small scales. I think that my point is that we needn’t fear going smaller to find models which can support quantum mechanics.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 7:50 PM

      It is the “seed” computation of the fractal, which seems to be at the core of this mystery. Yes, we should not be afraid of going smaller or bigger.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2012 at 3:22 AM

    Fractal concepts should be of help to understand the black hole – the indescribably “dense” pinpoint at its center. Or is it dense? And what do we mean by dense and what could be happening beyond the event horizon of the black hole? At it’s center? Posibly a pin-prick tear through to another universe? One which is co-existing “in between” the fractal reality of the one we live in? A “massive” ejection of that which was drawn in magnetically from this universe and then to be ejected into another dimension?

    We know one thing. At the center of a black hole is nothing intuitive going on there. Maybe in fractal concepts hold some fresh ideas.

    • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM

      I am sure the understanding of relativity will help me understand that better.

      Back to the book, for me.

      I want to get up to a point where I can have a dialogue with Einstein. 🙂


  • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM

    When we are measuring the velocity of light, we are probably measuring the property of space, and not the property of “something external” moving through the space.

    I am not sure if Einstein made this distinction.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 1:54 AM

      Intriguing and worth exploring. For sure light propagates at different speeds when passing through differing densities of materials. Interestingly, as an object accelerates toward the speed of light, it shortens in length but conversely; a beam of light when slowing as it passes through a medium compresses and shortens.

      Sound travel is an example of wave travel which I am understanding is similar to your model of light travel through the “medium of space.” Sound is a disturbance and travels in the form of a compression wave. Unlike light, sound travels faster through a liquid or non-porous medium. Whereas light is slowed.

      I like exploring your model of the rarefied energy fabric of space. Contemplating this reinforces the paradoxes of particles vs waves and helps me to consider another and counter-intuitive model. Well, I better get back to studying.

      • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 7:30 AM

        I always wondered about the surface of a fundamental particle, and how it would separate the particle from the surrounding space. Probably, there is no such clear cut surface. There is only a gradient of a density of energy that is maximum at the center of the particle, and which rapidly goes to zero as it moves away from that center.

        Energy of a particle is a standing wave type of proposition. What makes the energy of a particle to double back on itself to form a standing wave? I have no idea. Maybe mathematics could tell me if i can only formulate it.

        Sooner or later I have to dive heavily into understanding the wave mechanics. A particle could be the reverse of a black hole (mathematically). I am just speculating here.

        But I am feeling more and more strongly that there is a fundamental relationship between space-energy-mass. Time could be involved as the common denominator here.

        Hubbard may be right when he said, “The solidification of matter is found to be itself duration or time.” Space has no duration. Energy is fleeting and dissipates quickly. But matter endures.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 8:48 AM

          And when playing with my magnetic “bucky balls” I wonder at what energy is; I wonder what charge is; I wonder how “inches apart” the little magnetic balls can sense one another and be repelled or attracted so vigorously by something which is unseen and unfelt by me. Check out my facebook page for photos of objects created with these magnetic balls. Right in front of my eyes are huge macro-effects in motion and I cannot see the reason with my eyes but I can see the effect and feel the effect of the forces with my fingers.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM

          And so then what if socially, we were to find that the surfaces which separate people and the separations which make us individuals were of a similar construct as these “surfaces” which you mention and wonder about? What if “thoughts” were constructed of the same forces as the rest of the universe?

          I do see it playing out this way

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 8:40 PM

    If you are riding on the wave front of light, (moving at the speed of light), then you would be in the same “seconds interval” throughout.

    In other words, the TIME would stop for you.

    If you move faster than the speed of light then you would be encountering earlier “seconds interval.” Thus, the perception of the event will start to reverse.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 1:56 AM

      . . . And so the wave front of light does not “age.” I do not understand what I just wrote.

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM

    If one can move through air faster than the speed of sound, without disturbing the air, then the “sound time” will reverse for you.

    Thus, what is reversing through relativity is “sound time” or “light time” and not the actual time of the event.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      -2. That light speed varies by the medium in which it travels seems to be an argument for particle-physics.

      -1. That it might be a disturbance in the fabric of space seems to be an argument for wave-physics.

      0. This apparent paradox might point to a third idea which might be stated:
      1. There exists a “wave-function,” and
      2. That the wave-function is not wholly potential but a third and knowable phenomena detectable as micro-wave radiation which simply precedes light manifesting as particles or waves.
      3. This third phenomena, this wave function might be the fabric of space-time. It might simply be there detectable as the background micro-wave “noise” which is usually purported to be the “left-over radiation” of the big bang.
      4. I arrived at this because of its omni-presence and homogenous characteristic throughout the known universe.
      5. That the speed of light is constant, might be evidence of the “medium of space,” and an argument against the vacuum of space.
      6. If so, the “vacuum of space” would be found to be an oxymoron at all times and in all places.

    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM

      My thinking, at this point, seems to be following the old Luminiferous Ether theory that was invalidated by Michelson-Morley experiment.

      So, the next action seems to be to understand the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and how these results were interpreted. So, I am going back to Wikipedia and Internet.


  • vinaire  On February 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM

    There is a difference between what may actually be happening and how we perceive it. Our perception depends on light, and the velocity of that light is finite. Even the detection of the events by means of instruments would be subject to this difference.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 2:01 AM

      This comment of yours relates an extremely important concept. IF I can be mindful of its importance, then possibly my mind will open to meaningful possibilities. The more consistent “answers” may be floating right before my eyes, however, when they become manifest, they will be fresh and new concepts and unlike anything proposed yet.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    If we consider the subjective sensation that when we are “busy” that much time passes and when we are “not busy” that time passes slowly, I believe we may be experiencing the physical universe quality expressed by v=d/t.

    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM

      It could be how many expectations are being met per unit time.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    That there might be both a homogeneous and omnipresent “medium of space” might be an explanation for the constant and unsurpassable speed of light. Constant to the degree that any medium is consistent. Unsurpassable because this Medium of space “is everywhere.”

    If the Medium of Space could be removed from any calculation then might distance be reduced to zero and velocity increased to simultaneous? Somewhere around here is the subject of entanglement.

  • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM

    As I wrote above:

    My thinking, at this point, seems to be following the old Luminiferous Ether theory that was invalidated by Michelson-Morley experiment.

    So, the next action seems to be to understand the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and how these results were interpreted. So, I am going back to Wikipedia and Internet.

    My findings are as follows:

    Michelson–Morley experiment simply failed to detect any anisotropy in the speed of light due to the motion of earth in space.

    Thus, there is no relative motion between earth and “aether” the postulated medium of light in vacuum. This seems to invalidate the theory of aether. But this does not invalidate space itself being the “medium” of light.

    I guess, the next step would be to investigate the theory of “luminiferous aether” that was invalidated, and how the very idea of “space as medium of light” is different from the idea of luminiferous aether.


  • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    Let’s take a look at Timeline of luminiferous aether

    “4th-century BC – Aristotle publishes Physics. He was one of the first to publicly hypothesize as to the nature of light, proposing that it was a disturbance in the element air, hence it was a wave-like phenomenon.”

    Aristotle is right about light being a wave-like phenomenon. However, light is not produced because of a disturbance in air. Light seems to be produced because of a disturbance in space itself.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      “1704 – Isaac Newton publishes Opticks, in which he proposes a particle theory of light. This had trouble explaining refraction, so he adds a “fudge factor”, claiming that an “Aethereal Medium” is responsible for this effect, and going further to suggest it might be responsible for other physical effects such as heat.”

      There seems to be spectrum from a free-flowing form of light to particle form of light (photons), which condenses further into fundamental particles, such as, electron.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

      “1727 – James Bradley measures stellar aberration for the first time, proving (again) that light has a finite speed as well as that the Earth is moving.”

      There seems to be enough scientific evidence that
      (1) Light has a finite velocity.
      (2) Earth is not stationary.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

      “1818 – Augustin Fresnel introduces the wave theory of light, which proposes light is a transverse wave travelling in an aether, thereby explaining how polarization can exist. It is important to note that both Newton’s particle theory and Fresnel’s wave theory both assume an aether exists, albeit for different reasons. From this point on, no one even seems to question its existence.”

      Correct data proven by science seems to be that light is a transverse wave traveling through space. The postulated aether could simply be the space, whose nature is not fully understood.

      I have to study polarization. It seems to be a complex issue.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

      “1820 – Discovery of Siméon Poisson’s “Bright Spot”, supporting the Wave Theory.”

      This discovery does strengthen the wave theory of light.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

      “1830 – Fresnel develops a formula for predicting and measuring aether dragging by massive objects, based on a coupling constant. Such dragging seems to be at odds with aberration however, which would require the Earth not to drag the aether in order to be visible. George Gabriel Stokes becomes a champion of the dragging theory.”

      Later Michelson–Morley experiment proved this aether dragging theory to be incorrect.

    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM

      Re: Fizeau experiment

      “1851 – Armand Fizeau carries out his famous experiment with light travelling through moving water. He measures fringing due to motion of the water, perfectly in line with Fresnel’s formula. However he sees no effect due to the motion of the Earth, although he does not comment on this. Nevertheless this is seen as very strong evidence for aether dragging.”

      This experiment seems to show that motion of a medium would have some influence on the speed of light moving through it. It was then postulated that the speed of light would be influenced by the motion of aether. This was then proved to be incorrect by Michelson–Morley experiment.

      Apparently there is no aether. There is only space, and the concept of motion does not seem to apply to space. Space does not move or flow. Space is not dragged or entrained by the motion of earth passing through it.

      Space does not put any resistance to solid objects moving through it. Yet space is there and a disturbance in is what seems to produce light and its propagation.

      Any fluid or solid does not seem to be something external to space. It also seems to be made up of space.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

      Ref: Summary of Aether Drag Hypothesis

      That “there is no aether” simply means:
      (1) Space is non-material.
      (2) The idea of motion does not apply to space.

      It is my conjecture that matter is produced by the “condensation” of energy, and energy is somehow produced through the “disturbance” of space. The mathematics to describe space in this manner needs to be put together and any inconsistencies need to be sorted out.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM

      From Luminiferous aether

      “However, a transverse wave apparently required the propagating medium to behave as a solid, as opposed to a gas or fluid.”

      “He also suggested that the absence of longitudinal waves suggested that the aether had negative compressibility.”

      Space is non-material and the ideas of compressibility or incompressibility does not apply. Mathematically, space has to be treated very differently than any material with respect to the electromagnetic phenomenon.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    These are good posts.

    And maybe light has a finite velocity because of the quantum jump;
    which might be a fractal iteration;
    which might be limited by how rapidly it may be iterated such as every Planck second or so.

    Maybe motion is a complete illusion as it is in video. Maybe like your comment that our perception as well as our instruments are limited — maybe because they are slow. Reality might be happening trillions of times faster than we can detect.

  • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 7:49 PM

    From Luminiferous aether

    “Later, Maxwell’s equations showed that light is an electromagnetic wave. The apparent need for a propagation medium for such Hertzian waves can be seen by the fact that they consist of perpendicular electric (E) and magnetic (B or H) waves. The E waves consist of undulating dipolar electric fields, and all such dipoles appeared to require separated and opposite electric charges. Electric charge is an inextricable property of matter, so it appeared that some form of matter was required to provide the alternating current that would seem to have to exist at any point along the propagation path of the wave. Propagation of waves in a true vacuum would imply the existence of electric fields without associated electric charge, or of electric charge without associated matter. Albeit compatible with Maxwell’s equations, electromagnetic induction of electric fields could not be demonstrated in vacuum, because all methods of detecting electric fields required electrically charged matter.

    “In addition, Maxwell’s equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean-Newtonian relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell’s equations hold. That is, the aether must be “still” universally, otherwise c would vary along with any variations that might occur in its supportive medium. Maxwell himself proposed several mechanical models of aether based on wheels and gears, and George FitzGerald even constructed a working model of one of them. These models had to agree with the fact that the electromagnetic waves are transverse but never longitudinal.

    “Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.”


    The data above seems to be quite useful as a starting point to analyze and understand what space really is.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      I agree. And because the qualities described are of a substance which does not “exist” in an orthodox sense, you may call it unknowable. (sort of joke but not really)

      So we are stuck with something called the neti-neti of space which exists and yet is unlike anything else except for more of itself which isn’t like anything.

      I am not joking when I say that neti neti helps give me relief from the apparent inconsistencies of this discussion of space. And I think that if we support one another including anyone desiring to join in to follow or comment upon this thread and if we are mindful to continue to look I believe that we could make some meaningful progress toward understanding what space really is. And what electromagnetism really is. And what mass really is.

    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 9:54 PM

      Here are some comments on the quote above;

      (1) There is no aether filling the space. There is only space.
      (2) Space is not material. Therefore, “motion” is not there as part of space. Space may be considered being “still” universally.
      (3) Mass seems to be concentrated at points within space that are relatively very far apart. These points stay at stable distances from each other. This shows rigidity. So, space may be considered rigid enough to not allow longitudinal waves, and to be able to support high frequencies of light waves.
      (4) Space, among these points, is non-material, without mass and viscosity.
      (5) Space is completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale, except where the “point masses” are.

      These above are the properties of space. What happens to space near the “point masses” is not being considered here. Thus, away from the point masses, space is capable of supporting electromagnetic waves.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM

      The quote above seems to imply that electric field is capable of existing in space without associated electical charge. The implications of this needs to be investigated further.


    • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 10:15 PM

      Space may be hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell’s equations hold. This will ensure that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. Again the implications of this needs to be investigated further.


  • vinaire  On February 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

    From Luminiferous aether

    Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica: “Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers…. The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.”

    Let’s look at Huygen’s explanation here.


    • vinaire  On February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

      A simple example of the operation of the [Huygen’s] principle can be seen when two rooms are connected by an open doorway and a sound is produced in a remote corner of one of them. A person in the other room will hear the sound as if it originated at the doorway. As far as the second room is concerned, the vibrating air in the doorway is the source of the sound.


    • vinaire  On February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

      Huygens’ principle can be seen as a consequence of the isotropy of space – all directions in space are equal. Any disturbance created in a sufficiently small region of isotropic space (or in an isotropic medium) propagates from that region in all radial directions. The waves created by this disturbance, in turn, create disturbances in other regions, and so on. The superposition of all the waves results in the observed pattern of wave propagation.
      Space is isotropic for there is no inherent reason for any bias in any direction.


  • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2012 at 2:57 AM

    REASON FOR CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT FOR ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE: Light is emitted in packages that I will refer to as a wave-pulse. This wave-pulse package may contain wave-trains called “wellenzug.” However, wave-pulses need not necessarily be thought of as more than a single oscillation. This is not my idea, but conventional QM.

    Light pulses outward from an emitter and propagates at 186,000 miles/second. Because the pulses are nearly instantaneous and because the pulses have no particular mass, and because they move at the speed of light they have momentum. But because they are never at rest they have no particular inertia. Clumsy language that – pointing to more understanding required.
    Regardless, though an emission of light may seem to “stream” or “shine,” in fact it pulses and these emissions pulse instantaneously from the exact point in space where the emission occurs. They have momentum in the direction in which they are emitted but none in the direction of the motion of the emitter. See?

    ***Shifts in wavelength of light are NOT caused by motion of the emitter. Rather, they are caused by any motion of the observer with respect to the emitted wave-pulse of light — after the fact of its emission.*** “How Long Is a Photon”

    • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

      *** This is a mistake on my part due to looking too closely at a single photon emission.***

      Please see a better statement below…

  • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

    It is a postulate that the speed of light is constant for all frames of reference but the reason why this should be so is heretofore unknown. However, I want to postulate a model whereby the reason for this can be known. My reasoning is supported by the quantum jump of photon emission shown in QM.

    Stated better:
    1. Emissions of light occur in pulses rather than streaming.
    2. The pulses are of short duration.
    3. The single electromagnetic pulse is of such very short duration that it emanates from a single point in space-time.
    4. Rapid and consecutive emanations or wave pulses create the following illusions:
    A. Motion
    B. Color shift by stringing out the pulses (red-shift) by moving away or compressing the pulses (blue-shift) by moving closer.
    5. The medium of space-time is “expanding” by quantum jumps and thus the wave-pulse point of emanation is moving away from any observer for purposes of cosmology.
    6. It may be found that all motion occurs in quantum jumps rather than a smooth and gradual motion. This is at the quantum level and would only be visible to a human observer or his machinery through the lens of mathematics.
    7. This postulated motion and wave-pulsing by quantum jumps means that every quantum moment – possibly Planck Second – the universe is holding rigidly perfectly still.
    8. Thus sources of wave-pulses of electromagnetic radiation (light) are never in motion at the moment of emanation.

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

    Here are some more postulated properties of space:

    (1) Space permeates all point of material bodies.
    (2) Space must give rise to electric and magnetic phenomena.
    (3) Space must determine the propagation velocity of their effects.
    (4) The speed of light and all other propagating effects are determined by space at the relevant location.
    (5) This is analogous to the way that gaseous, liquid and solid media affect the propagation of sound waves.
    (6) Space may be considered the overall reference frame for the universe and thus velocities are all absolute relative to its “rest frame.”


  • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 7:44 AM

    Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

    “It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .

    “The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

    “It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”


    • Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM


      This is what I am finding as well. My sense is that the idea that there are vast portions or in fact any portions of the universe which are void and contain “nothing” is as counter-intuitive to me as thinking that I will make manifest what is “unknowable.”

      It is no leap of logic to me that space is composed of something, and also that – – that something can be manipulated.

  • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 7:49 AM

    From Wikipedia:

    Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being “bitty” at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. Instead of being “smooth”, the vacuum is described as looking like “quantum foam”. It has been suggested that this seething mass of virtual particles may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.

    Can the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic waves be looked upon as a “particle pair”?


    • Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

      “particle paired” as in your comment about potential vs kinetic?

      • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 2:15 PM


        This goes back to the binary nature of this universe.


  • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM

    This article, Electromagnetism, provides a wonderful introduction. Here are a few viewpoints worth noticing.

    (1) The interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons determine interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms. This governs the processes involved in Chemistry.

    (2) Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules.

    (3) It seems that the electric field stores the potential, which is expressed through the magnetic field as force. The electromagnetic wave is like a “potential-actual” wave. This is analogous to how potential and kinetic energy switches back and forth in a pendulum.

    “Light and other electromagnetic waves take the form of quantized, self-propagating oscillatory electromagnetic field disturbances called photons. Different frequencies of oscillation give rise to the different forms of electromagnetic radiation, from radio waves at the lowest frequencies, to visible light at intermediate frequencies, to gamma rays at the highest frequencies.”


  • vinaire  On February 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

    I guess, my current question is, “Why is the speed of light a constant?”


    • Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      I am a little obsessed with this question. I understand you to ask it ambiguously.

      Please ask it again to clear up what you want to know: Why is there a constant?, or why is it constant?, or why is it constant for all frames of reference?, or why does EMR represent that constant?, or why is the constant speed 186K mi/sec?, or other phrasing . . . ?

%d bloggers like this: