Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

So when you said this, Michael, with such vehemence - do you admit you might...just *possibly* be wrong

For the record, I will admit that I was wrong to give you a hard time about Lorentz violation statements because the subject is very confusing, there are too many plasma redshift models to choose from at the moment, and the term 'vacuum' is simply confusing as hell in light of all the energy that it contains. There are QM effects specified in various tired light models, but all of them tend to require the presence of plasma to make them work.

The events do not occur in a "pure vacuum" devoid of all energy. The energy exchanges occur between particles of energy in the vacuum including plasma and the carrier particles of the EM fields around the plasma. It 'may' be a QM effect of sorts, particularly if you consider the Stark effect to be a QM effect.

- since a point particle interpretation of collisions (as you so helpfully starred for emphasis) leads to untenable "blurring"?

No. This is a ridiculous handwave in light of Holushko's second download that demonstrates that blurriness is not a problem as it relates to anything, including spectral aging. You can flail away with that handwave of a claim all you like but Holushko's C# code on spectral aging demonstrates that it's not true.

So you jump from predominantly touting Ashmore's theory, to Holushko's C code, to Ari's original paper. (p.s. please observe p.28, he also points out the equation errors previously mentioned in said paper).

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

You're backing away from particle interactions because you see the inherent problem, I think - that's progress.

I'm not backing away from anything yet. I'm simply researching a subject that is still pretty new to me and I'm considering all my options at the moment. The realization that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab is actually a fairly recent revelation for me personally. I'm still considering the strengths and weaknesses of the various plasma redshift models and I'm doing a lot of reading right now. About all I can say so far is that a potentially purely empirical solution to these redshift issues is pretty exciting from my perspective. I'm enjoying the learning process a great deal.

I will say that I find the particle interaction option to be less attractive in terms of scattering, and more attractive in terms of broadening effects, but I suspect the broadening issue will change as I learn more about field to field interaction concepts. For the time being I entertain them all, but I'm more interested in a Stark effect type solution, particularly now that I've seen Chen's laboratory findings.

 

[mkatzwork]

Wait a second. Holoshko is simply quoting Khaiderov and he explains *why* its not constant, specifically because the plasmas and corresponding EM fields are not constant. Keep in mind that even the Stark effect is based on the presence of the EM fields.

Read what he said carefully. Why exactly would plasma and EM fields change whether the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or not?

Holushko invokes either a Lorentz violation or a complete overturning of SR...your pick!

You just jumped to a *wild* conclusion even *after* Holushko clearly states that his code and methods apply to a *whole list* of tired light theories including Compton scattering models and unknown models as Hubble suggested. He wasn't 'locking it into' a single method, he was covering all the bases, from EM field influence (like the Stark effect observed in the lab), as well as particle collision type events. You can't simply wave your hand like that and discount a whole range of options in one fell swoop without further evidence.

See above distinction. I'm not discounting the rest of his work...just the bit that follows from the above statement. (Which is rather a lot of it)

I must say if your *one high energy photon* paper is the best rebuttal that you've got, you're in a world of hurt. I don't even have a clue why they simply *assumed* that one high energy photon actually came from the last of the 7 events rather than a prior event.

I'm not sure either, but I can't remember off the top of my head. The point is, you can't know whether that photon WAS emitted at precisely the same moment, so getting too worked up about it isn't in order at this juncture, as the abstract of the MAGIC paper even notes in a roundabout fashion...

Incidentally, the most fundamental rebuttal is not the above: it is that you do not have a species independent mechanism for a species independent observation. Every mechanism proposed so far (Compton, AC Stark, etc. etc.) is species dependent or exhibits different effects at different wavelengths, neither of which is observed in nature. So you've still not got a valid mechanism for your theory even if we discount the scatter/blurring problem.

Granted, we don't have a complete cosmological constant mechanism either yet, but you said something about throwing stones in a glass house?

Which authors? Ashmore's theory is a particle collision theory in the final analysis. It's not plasma optional. The link he provided is simply a verification of his 'prediction' about delay times.

When did he first predict this, incidentally? Hunting for the paper...

Whether it's valid or not remains to be seen IMO. That *one photon* paper really didn't help your case all that much IMO. The whole paper seems to be based on the "assumption" that the single high energy photon in question must have originated in the last of the 7 events. That one assumption seems like the most dubious assumption of the paper.

I have to look back to see why that assumption is there.

True. I will give you some latitude on this issue because they are talking about a quantum type of aether that is composed of EM fields between and around the particles, not just the particles themselves. The strength and variation of the fields is related to the location and currents flowing through the plasma however. It's not just the fields that are present in space, the particles movements create those fields.

An Aether...yikes. We have no experimental observations of that, do we? I think you've made your POV clear on that kind of thing in the past? I have no problem with it in a sense (I don't mind a hypothesis proposing something as yet unseen) but I think you're less accommodating on that, no?

Not to mention...EM fields of which the quantum is...what, precisely? I think we'll have to delve into QED to discuss photon/photon interactions and their dual partner, EM/EM interactions, but I don't think the QG people will be too impressed with your idea. Incidentally, when photons interact, they obviously aren't fermions so things happen very differently...

Incidentally, if you're going for the quantum foam idea you're probably (but not necessarily) going to have deal with Lorentz violation issues. And even if you look at it from a field interaction perspective, you're then going to be dealing with Poynting vectors so "scattering angle" as a concept still exists....

You're welcome to refute Chen's work if that floats your boat and you think you'll make any headway on that front. I'm not appealing to any consensus on the topic.

Why would I refute it? That team's work looks excellent, but what I'm refuting is your (plural) misinterpretation of it, that's all. I think the work has interesting applications as regards carbon nanotubes being used for communications....

It's not untenable and Holushko demonstrates it and provides two different C# programs to prove it. You can't handwave it way based on *one high energy photon*. I won't let you.

Good! I'll refute elements of it, slightly based on the fact that he's using an aether (although as I said, intrinsically I have no problem with proposing something unseen as a hypothesis) but MOSTLY because he seems to want to mess with SR, which is something of a harder problem. He barely gives the statement that "speed of light in a vacuum isn't a constant" a moment's consideration in his paper, despite the fact that it rails against a century of physics that says otherwise.

From my perspective you're already trying to "dumb it down" and make me choose one or the other when both processes could in fact play a role in the 'average redshift' we observe. I'm not convinced that any redshift model is 100 percent correct yet. I intend to keep my options open for awhile and see what happens with future studies.

Will come back to this and the rest later.

 

[mkatzwork]

Two gems from the Holushko paper on Type Ia Supernovae - just from page 1.

"It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy."

This cracks me up. He's basically saying - "I can't imagine it, therefore we can assume it untrue!"

"The travelling time of photons emitted from the same source and observed at the same destination varies."

One cannot say this, cannot, without knowing for sure that they left at precisely the same time. This is the same assumption that Ashmore made citing the MAGIC results.

This is why this stuff doesn't get past peer review with the major journals.

 

[Michael]

Read what he said carefully. Why exactly would plasma and EM fields change whether the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or not?

You tend to oversimplify issues. The vacuum that Holushko describes is not an *empty* vacuum. It *includes* (doesn't exclude) the carrier particles of the EM field that is created by charged particles in the non empty vacuum. There is no such thing as a pure "vacuum" in space since all of them include particles of light and all of them include neutrinos. It's best described as a "thin plasma".

I'm finding it fascinating that you're ignoring the fact that Holushko cites *other* concepts like Compton scattering and that is a generic approach, and not related to a *single* plasma redshift process. It's inclusive, not exclusive of the Stark effect.

Let's stop talking past each other for a moment. Is the Stark effect a quantum mechanical process in your opinion, and does it occur in a "vacuum"? The point of the question should be obvious since Chen cites the Stark effect as the probable "cause" of plasma redshift and there's no reason I can think of to doubt him on that assessment.

Holushko invokes either a Lorentz violation or a complete overturning of SR...your pick!

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really need to stop arguing points using a false dilemma fallacy. It's really annoying.

I need to stop her for a second. BRB.

 

[Michael]

See above distinction. I'm not discounting the rest of his work...just the bit that follows from the above statement. (Which is rather a lot of it)

You can't discount any of his work since you cannot discount the Stark effect. It's been observed in the lab. You might as well be arguing against radiometric decay methods.

I have no idea yet how to to convey to you the importance of current flow, plasma densities, ion temperatures, electrons temperatures and such that come into play in these interactions. They are not simple interactions that are described in Chen's paper, but apparently most of them relate to the Stark effect as photons travel through a *plasma*, not a 'vacuum'. Space isn't a "vacuum" in the first place, it's a thin plasma. That seems to be the point where we start to talk past one another. You keep ignoring the need for plasma particles in all of the redshift concepts. Plasma isn't optional, so the 'vacuum" isn't empty in the first place! There is no need for any Lorentz violations to occur, just a Stark type drag effect related to the photons interacting with the carrier particles of the EM field, AKA other photons.

I'd compromise at this point and state that it's a "quantum" effect alright, but it's directly related to *plasma processes* throughout a non empty vacuum, or more correctly a "thin plasma".

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure either, but I can't remember off the top of my head. The point is, you can't know whether that photon WAS emitted at precisely the same moment, so getting too worked up about it isn't in order at this juncture, as the abstract of the MAGIC paper even notes in a roundabout fashion...

Then we are right back to square one. I went looking for their explanation of a selection of the last pulse as the source of the high energy photon and I simply didn't see one. It's possible I missed it, but it looks to have been "assumed" because it was "close" (not perfect but close) to what they were expecting. They then swept the rest of their .9 second delay problem under the rug with "It was probably source related'.

I'm sorry, but you'll need to do better than a single photon and a wild guess. If there were a total of seven spikes in the data set, they have only a 1 in 7 chance of even correctly citing the correct release time, even if we *assume* that it's related to a spike rather than the 200second area of the flare. Holy Cow! The methodology used appears to be about as weak as I've ever seen in a paper signed by so many scientists. Wow! That sure is a lot of professional reputations hanging by a single photon.

I'd have been impressed if they showed all seven spikes with lots of high energy photons showing the same spikes at the same time. Basing a whole argument on one photon and a wild guess just won't cut it for me I'm afraid.

As I see things, it's a push at this point. You can't use that last paper as a legitimate rebuttal of the MAGIC data unless you can more carefully explain how they were sure that the photon in question was related to the very last of seven spikes in the data set.

 

[Michael]

Two gems from the Holushko paper on Type Ia Supernovae - just from page 1.

"It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy."

This cracks me up. He's basically saying - "I can't imagine it, therefore we can assume it untrue!"

I think you're misconstruing what he said. He's saying that *in the context of plasma redshift models......."

You're ignoring the fact that he's commenting on the net affect in various *plasma redshift* models. There's context to his statement that you seem to be overlooking. He also made a host of predictions that could and should be used as "tests" of his computer model. If it fails those cited tests, it should be modified accordingly.

"The travelling time of photons emitted from the same source and observed at the same destination varies."

One cannot say this, cannot, without knowing for sure that they left at precisely the same time.

Again, he's commenting on the *mathematical model* he's created in C# and the models described in tired light theories in general. You can't ignore the context of his remarks.

This is the same assumption that Ashmore made citing the MAGIC results.

No, actually Ashmore's theory has the same prediction, and he took it a step further by citing the MAGIC results. That's called supporting your argument with data. It's different than commenting on the model itself.

This is why this stuff doesn't get past peer review with the major journals.

I don't think you're being fair to the authors quite frankly, and your one photon rebuttal paper has less than a 1 in 7 chance of even being accurate as far as I can tell.

 

[Michael]

Incidentally, the most fundamental rebuttal is not the above: it is that you do not have a species independent mechanism for a species independent observation.

Sure I do. It's an "average net effect" over distance and time involving many types of plasmas, many subtle Stark effects and it all has to be averaged out.

Every mechanism proposed so far (Compton, AC Stark, etc. etc.) is species dependent or exhibits different effects at different wavelengths, neither of which is observed in nature.

I'm not trying to be paranoid or anything, but can you cite a study that actually demonstrates that it's *exactly* the same for every wavelength? Many times that I've *assumed* someone's statement is true, I've been burned. If that assumption that you made about time delays (or lackthereof) is any indication, a lot of your beliefs are hanging by a single photon, a wing and a prayer.

So you've still not got a valid mechanism for your theory even if we discount the scatter/blurring problem.

I disagree with you about the mechanism already, but I would like to see a reference that you believe demonstrates the claim that all redshift is universal across all wavelengths. I've assumed that is true to this point in time, but I'm starting to doubt it now. It sounds suspiciously like one of those overly aggressive arguments that is based on really old data, and a very limited number of wavelengths. I could be wrong of course, but I would like to at least verify that claim.

 

[mkatzwork]

You tend to oversimplify issues. The vacuum that Holushko describes is not an *empty* vacuum.

This isn't a false dilemma. Sorry. You're not reading what it says.

He says "the speed of light in A vacuum"

A Vacuum.

The indefinite article, not the definite article or the proximal demonstrative 'This'.


He does not say "this "vacuum" that I'm defining here which isn't a vacuum at all".

Do you understand the difference? He IS contradicting SR - that's the whole point. He is proposing a luminiferous aether for the propagation of light instead of the mathematics of SR. That is why he says:

"The speed of light is not a fundamental constant". Not 'is not constant'. It is not a fundamental constant, i.e. C as a non-constant can vary. The actual constant, not the speed of light.

"Aether is a physical media which is attributed by physical properties such as pressure, density, temperature, elasticity, viscosity. The properties of aether define the speed of electromagnetic waves. These physical properties are not constant, they may fluctuate; therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

 

[Michael]

Good! I'll refute elements of it, slightly based on the fact that he's using an aether (although as I said, intrinsically I have no problem with proposing something unseen as a hypothesis) but MOSTLY because he seems to want to mess with SR, which is something of a harder problem. He barely gives the statement that "speed of light in a vacuum isn't a constant" a moment's consideration in his paper, despite the fact that it rails against a century of physics that says otherwise.

Sorry to pick your post apart like this, but I'm a bit busy and I'm responding between phone calls.

I don't get the impression that Holushko wants to mess with SR at all. I'm of the impression that he's trying to "explain" how *various* tired light theories work in theory, and he's trying to create a generic mathematical model from them that makes testable "predictions" that are unique to plasma redshift theories.

He's not really describing an empty vacuum at all, although admittedly he does call it a 'vacuum'. He's describing a vacuum that is inclusive of EM carrier particles, not a vacuum that is exclusive of those carrier particles. Not coincidentally, Chen's experiment is also inclusive of those same EM carrier particles. Since the carrier particles of the EM fields of spacetime vary in density from place to place, he's averaging the net "drag" effect produced in field to field oriented tired light theories (including the Stark effects). He also lists a series of predictions that should be tested to verify and/or falsify his model. That's how it's supposed to work IMO. You're essentially blaming him for making legitimate scientific predictions that are unique to tired light theories. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the presence of the EM fields he's describing are directly related to, and created by the plasma in that same "vacuum". It's not an empty vacuum. He should have used the term "thin plasma", not "vacuum" IMO.

 

[Michael]

This isn't a false dilemma. Sorry. You're not reading what it says.

He says "the speed of light in A vacuum"

A Vacuum.

Ya, A vacuum, that *includes* EM carrier particles like every "vacuum" of spacetime. I've already granted you that he should have used the term "thin plasma". What more do you want?

 

[mkatzwork]

Sure I do. It's an "average net effect" over distance and time involving many types of plasmas, many subtle Stark effects and it all has to be averaged out.

The Stark effect does NOT cause the redshift (not even in the Chen paper, according to Ashmore). It causes the pressure blurring of the spectral lines by charged particles, such as the example of additional electrons in carbon nanotubes, demonstrated by Chen.

Species dependent interactions are not additive - they don't "average out over time". The reason we know this is because spectral lines DO blur - if the effect was "averaging out" over many interactions we would not see blurring of the spectral lines, period.

 

[Michael]

"Aether is a physical media which is attributed by physical properties such as pressure, density, temperature, elasticity, viscosity. The properties of aether define the speed of electromagnetic waves. These physical properties are not constant, they may fluctuate; therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

All those things he's listing are properties of *plasma* including pressure, density, temperature, viscosity, etc. You're ignoring the fact that these are all related to *plasma physics*. His vacuum includes a plasma "aether", nothing more, nothing less. It's Inclusive of Compton scattering and inclusive of Stark effects in plasma.

 

[mkatzwork]

Ya, A vacuum, that *includes* EM carrier particles like every "vacuum" of spacetime. I've already granted you that he should have used the term "thin plasma". What more do you want?

You to understand what the guy wrote. Aether was the precursor to SR...you know that right? Read what I wrote again. Really carefully. He is talking about fundamentals - it's a hypothetical vacuum, not the real thing. That's what SR refers to.

 

[Michael]

You to understand what the guy wrote. Aether was the precursor to SR...you know that right? Read what I wrote again. Really carefully. He is talking about fundamentals - it's a hypothetical vacuum, not the real thing. That's what SR refers to.

I know what he wrote and I know what Ari wrote and I know what Ashmore wrote too. They all *include* plasma and they all include EM carrier particles. There is a "real world" we are trying to describe. Astronomers use the term "vacuum of space" rather erroneously all the time. You're ignoring the context of his *other* statements, fixating on *one* model he describes in one paragraph, and ignoring all the other options that he also lists! Give it a break already!

The vacuums of space are *inclusive* of plasma. They are *inclusive* of neutrinos, light and EM influences galore! Nobody is claiming otherwise, and Holushko's model is *not* dependent on any one tired light concept. Get over it already! All the vacuums of spacetime include plasma and all the properties he assigned to "aether" are all properties of the *plasma* in the vacuum!

 

[mkatzwork]

I know what he wrote and I know what Ari wrote and I know what Ashmore wrote too. They all *include* plasma and they all include EM carrier particles. There is a "real world" we are trying to describe. Astronomers use the term "vacuum of space" rather erroneously all the time. You're ignoring the context of his *other* statements, fixating on *one* model he describes in one paragraph, and ignoring all the other options that he also lists! Give it a break already!

The vacuums of space are *inclusive* of plasma. They are *inclusive* of neutrinos, light and EM influences galore! Nobody is claiming otherwise, and Holushko's model is *not* dependent on any one tired light concept. Get over it already! All the vacuums of spacetime include plasma and all the properties he assigned to "aether" are all properties of the *plasma* in the vacuum!

No, sorry, you're just wrong. The vacuum of SR is a hypothetical vacuum - you may argue that it doesn't exist in reality, but that doesn't matter. He isn't describing it, he's waving it away entirely as a concept, along with the constancy of the speed of light in a hypothetical vacuum. It doesn't matter what the speed of light is in a non-true vacuum to SR.

He is talking about an aether as his idea of the thing that exists IN REALITY, and saying that because of that aether, the speed of light is NOT A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT, which is what SR predicts. Why don't you understand this? He isn't talking about the hypothetical SR perfect vacuum in the descriptive of the aether, he's dismissing it.

 

[Michael]

No, sorry, you're just wrong. The vacuum of SR is a hypothetical vacuum - you may argue that it doesn't exist in reality, but that doesn't matter. He isn't describing it, he's waving it away entirely as a concept, along with the constancy of the speed of light in a hypothetical vacuum. It doesn't matter what the speed of light is in a non-true vacuum to SR.

He is talking about an aether as his idea of the thing that exists IN REALITY, and saying that because of that aether, the speed of light is NOT A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT, which is what SR predicts. Why don't you understand this? He isn't talking about the hypothetical SR perfect vacuum in the descriptive of the aether, he's dismissing it.

I simply disagree with you about what he's trying to describe and how it relates back to SR. In SR, a vacuum is essentially a uniform and empty vacuum. It's a theoretical "perfection" of sorts that does not actually exist in nature.

The vacuums of spacetime are not a "perfect" vacuum. Holushko is attempting to describe the variable carrier particle field that exists inside of a non-uniform, imperfect vacuum. He's calling it an "aether". His vacuum *includes* carrier particle fields of variable density, a variable density field of "aether". His vacuum includes carrier particles of the EM fields in configurations that SR theory (in theory) doesn't describe. The properties he assigns to the carrier particle field all relate back the the *plasma* that creates the carrier particle field. The density of that carrier particle field (aether) is variable. It moves, it twists, it turns as a result of the plasma movements that create them. He's not describing an empty vacuum, he's describing a vacuum with varying density 'pockets' of EM carrier particles.

 

[Michael]

It occurs to me that we are not actually debating SR, we are discussing and debating the nature of the 'vacuum'.

 

[mkatzwork]

It occurs to me that we are not actually debating SR, we are discussing and debating the nature of the 'vacuum'.

That is where you are going wrong. I'm not debating the definition of either a true or non-true vacuum and I think we'd agree on the definitions most likely. The vacuum he is referring to in that particular sentence is most certainly that of SR, because otherwise why bother to have the "a fundamental" constant? The only mainstream theory relevant that directly addresses the -fundamental- constant of the speed of light in a vacuum is SR.

If he just wanted to say the speed of light can change in a plasma in outer space why bother talking about "fundamental constants"?? There's nothing fundamental about it if he's simply referring to the intergalactic "vacuum".

 

[createdtoworship]

IMO it is not quite fair to say that there are no working SUSY "theories" (on paper). It is just that none of those theories and maths happen to enjoy any empirical verification in the lab at the moment. My guess is that SUSY theory will end up being a big dud at LHC. Keep in mind that even were the researchers at LHC to find some evidence of any SUSY particle, it wouldn't necessarily have the necessary qualities (like longevity) to plug the missing mass gaps of mainstream cosmology theory, anymore than it would necessarily explain "soul" theory.

true, true.