Dear Chian Fan

The conceptual framework of classic physics is organized with the help of the observable/detectable phenomena. Thus if we cannot observe/detect a phenomenon in space, space must be empty. Of course this simple concept was doubted, not at least because of the existence of magnetic fields inside a vessel with a vacuum. So there had to be a medium in vacuum space (aether theory).

Einstein’s model of curved spacetime didn’t hypothesize the existence of an aether, although the proposed curvature of space indicates that space itself has tangible properties. Thus from a certain point of view Einstein replaced the idea of the aether with the concept of space itself as the medium that facilitate the gravitational motion of the tangible phenomena: matter.

A more sophisticated model about physical reality originate from the ancient Greek philosophers (Parmenides of Elea and followers). They hypothesized the existence of an underlying reality that creates the “landscape” of the observable/detectable phenomena. The underlying reality has a structure and the structure is build up by units with the same basic properties. These units can not be divided into smaller units. Nevertheless, the units are not static but dynamical because it was obvious that physical reality shows a continuous transformation of shapes and properties. In other words, for Parmenides and followers a phenomenon was not an independent being that moves “through” the universe, a phenomenon is a “projection” of the unmovable structure of the underlying reality from point to point in space. By the way, the ideas of Parmenides were the result of his analysis of the motion of an arrow in the air (Parmenides was a famous mathematician too).

Modern physics has a comparable conceptual framework: quantum field theory (QFT).[1] Physics rely on the scientific method thus the properties of the structure of the different basic quantum fields that tessellate space are known because these properties originate from experiments (“tangible” evidence).

In QFT there are 2 dynamical fields, the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field, the Higgs field is the universal scalar field). Light is a phenomenon that represents the dynamics of the structure of the electromagnetic field. However, the “tangible” part of an electromagnetic wave is a sequence of transferred energy, a multiple of Planck’s constant (the quantum of energy). The quantum of energy is the smallest amount of energy in physical reality thus the basic properties of all these quanta are identical.

In other words, the quantum of energy represents the dynamical properties of the structure of the electromagnetic field. The structure of the electromagnetic field is in rest (obvious) thus the quantum of energy is nothing else than the pass on of a fixed property of the dynamical structure of the electromagnetic field “in space”. A pass on that has a fixed linear velocity because the electromagnetic field is a rest frame.[2]

The relevance of this concept in QFT is abundantly clear if we realize that the properties of the electromagnetic field (universal electric field and corresponding magnetic field) represent the 2 main conservation laws: the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum.

I have tried to explain the topic in a historic perspective, so it is a lot of text, sorry.

With kind regards, Sydney

References:

From my point of view, photon has no need to know its speed. Photon is just a discreet element of electromagnetic space excitation. For example, the space may be excited when an electron moved to a lower energy level in an atom. The excited photon has its energy and momentum, so it is forced to excite the neighboring elements of space in the direction of its momentum. Speed of light is a speed of the electromagnetic space excitation. It cannot be larger or smaller than that speed. It's just a fundamental constant of nature.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Although I agree with your comment, it is obvious that Chian Fan didn’t start this discussion to read what he can find in the text books. I suppose that he is curious to hear the “tangible” causation behind the existence of the constant speed of light. Actually this question is well known because it is part of the search for the underlying reality of Quantum Mechanics (and therefore also part of QFT). A topic that came into prominence by Sean Carroll in the New York Times a couple of years ago (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html).

The article of Sean Carroll resulted in papers of renowned physicists like Gerard ‘t Hooft, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli and – of course – Sean Carroll himself. But all these attempts to solve the conceptual problems have not resulted in a new, more “tangible” description of the underlying reality of Quantum Mechanics. Thus we have an adequate formalism in theoretical physics, but not a model that elucidates the physical origin of the formalism. Inclusive the origin of the constant velocity of electromagnetic waves.

There is a RG discussion about the article in the New York Times too and at the moment there are 23.540 reads and 2237 comments. But no solution:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Possibly you can find the aswer to your question in this work Research Proposal Toward a new physics: the physics of discrete spaces

With kind regards,

Vadim

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Thank you for remark on my comment.

But I think it will be difficult to find out a “tangible” cause in the quantum world whole of uncertainty.

The links you have presented concerning a discussion on the model that could elucidate the physical origin of the quantum phenomena are really interesting for me.

I glad to meet you here.

Mikhail.

Dear Vad Pérez , Mikhail N Dulin

I will read your paper "Towards a new physics: the physics of discrete spaces". I am familiar with research on discrete/quantized space so I propose that I can read your paper, inclusive the Spanish part. Thanks for the link.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm, I'll be happy to assist you in case of any question (although please note that this is entirely Mikhail's specialty, I am just a translator and a bit of editor).

Dear Mikhail N Dulin Sydney Ernest Grimm Vad Pérez

your extremely valuable comments and sources of information.

We believe that as long as the problem remains a problem, physics needs to investigate it.

Best Regards, Chian

“How does light know its speed?”

- the answer to this question see in recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_light_and_particles_know_that_they_are_choosing_the_shortest_path

Cheers

Dear Chian Fan, I have asked this same question. Spacetime is involved in the speed of light and not so much the momentum.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

From the maxwell equations, we know that c=1/\srqt{\epsilon\mu}. Thus the speed of light is given by the permeability and the permitivity of the middle.

“…From the maxwell equations, we know that c=1/\srqt{\epsilon\mu}. Thus the speed of light is given by the permeability and the permitivity of the middle.….”

- that really correctly answers to the thread question “How does light know its speed?”, however that can have some real sense only if at that it is explained – what are “the middle”? ,“the permeability”?, “the permittivity “?, why and how this “the middle” have “the permeability” and “the permittivity “ at all? and why they are as just they are?

Again, the answer to these questions is given in the SS post inhttps://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_light_and_particles_know_that_they_are_choosing_the_shortest_path/2 , page 1, where, including, it is explained that Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct),

- and so in the spacetime “the middle” , i.e. Matter’s “aether”, which is the ultimate base of Matter – the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, is placed, while everything in Matter are only some specific disturbances in the lattice.

At that “the permeability” and “the permittivity “ of “the middle”, which have rather complicated values in SI system, in the really much more natural CGSE system have quite rational values be equal to 1; which are equal to 1 for EM waves [i.e. for particles “photons”] since all/every particles move in the 4D utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c, [“bold” means 4D vector],

- what, in turn, is determined by the main and utmost universal parameters of FLE – their “size”, lP, and “FLE flip time”, tP, lP and tP are Planck length and Planck time, c=lP/tP. Photons have the observable speed of light since they move only in the 3DXYZ space; and so “the permeability” and “the permittivity “ of “the middle” are equal to 1.

More see the link above, including the SS post on page 2, though; and the links in this post, including https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_time11#view=63c940bafa2ccd380d0b4943/6

Cheers

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

would you be so kind as to give me a link to the paragraph used in your comment above?

A more sophisticated model about physical reality originate from the ancient Greek philosophers (Parmenides of Elea and followers). They hypothesized the existence of an underlying reality that creates the “landscape” of the observable/detectable phenomena. The underlying reality has a structure and the structure is build up by units with the same basic properties. These units can not be divided into smaller units. Nevertheless, the units are not static but dynamical because it was obvious that physical reality shows a continuous transformation of shapes and properties. In other words, for Parmenides and followers a phenomenon was not an independent being that moves “through” the universe, a phenomenon is a “projection” of the unmovable structure of the underlying reality from point to point in space. By the way, the ideas of Parmenides were the result of his analysis of the motion of an arrow in the air (Parmenides was a famous mathematician too).

I like it so much that I would like to use the opinion of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides in my future works. His words very well reflect my ideas about discrete physical spaces.

Best wishes, Dulin Mikhail.

Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

we can reinforce your Parmenide's with the below conception...which, by the way, is a the bridge to the expected vacuum energy of QFT (QCD) and other high-energy theories.

from THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than

1/8pi *R2

where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Parmenides of Elea was one of the most famous philosophers in ancient Greece (about 500 B.C). But most of what we know about Parmenides is what other philosophers wrote about his ideas. Because there are only fragments left of his original work.

After the collapse of the Roman empire European clerics/scientist tried to translate the old documents of the Greece and Roman culture. It is obvious that they translated the manuscripts in good condition first. Moreover, they translated the manuscripts with the help of the concepts of their own culture (phenomenological and religious).

In other words, our knowledge about the meaning of the concepts of the ancient Greek philosophers is still evolving. It is only recently that there is a more realistic interpretation of the work of Parmenides of Elea (and followers like Zeno of Elea). But it is difficult to give a link to an enveloping description of the ideas of Parmenides.

The English version of Wikipedia has a description of the ideas of Parmenides. Also the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides (there are references to papers about Parmenides too and parts of his work are explained under different topics).

But keep in mind that my opinion about Parmenides is related to his “mathematical” ideas about the universe (Parmenides was a famous mathematician too). See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96382-9

Personally I didn’t know anything about Parmenides. But about a decade ago I was thinking about my own research and I was speculating about the possibility that some of my research was not known before. A couple of month later I stumbled upon a paper about philosophy and discovered that about 2500 years ago Parmenides described the same concepts. I am glad too because a really new idea that is also correct is hard to imagine.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Stefano Quattrini

If we take the most “light version” of the metric of quantized/discrete space the metric must be about 0,243 x 10-15 m (the speculative Planck length is about 10-35 m). Every unit in quantized/discrete space changes with an identical amount of energy (Planck’s constant) and if the change is linear the “velocity” is the constant speed of light (299.792.458 m/s). Thus the amount of energy of 1 unit transferred to an adjacent unit during 1 second is 1,199 x 1024 quanta.

But that is not a correct result because the more duration, the higher the amount of energy. Thus to calculate the total amount of energy in the universe we have to divide the volume of the universe by the volume of 1 unit and multiple the outcome with the corresponding energy of 1 quantum (Planck’s constant is expressed in eV.Hz-1so we have to recalculate the amount of energy).

Now we get the problem what is meant with energy? Is it the "power" to change, is it the amount of change or both?

Because if we near 0 degrees Kelvin it is impossible to “stop” the existence of electromagnetic waves (zero point radiation). The diagram above shows “what is going on”.

The universe as a whole will reflect the properties of every unit of quantized space because the universe is tessellated by the units. The diagram shows 1 unit but it also shows “the whole universe”.

The volume of every unit is invariant (vertical dotted line) but the surface area is a variable. In line with Einstein’s E = m c2. Zero point radiation shows that we cannot decrease the local amount of energy beyond a certain threshold (horizontal dotted line). The consequence is that in the early universe the average surface area of every unit of discrete space in vacuum space was much higher than today. Because at the moment matter emerged in the early universe (= concentrations of energy) the average energy “density” (surface area) in vacuum space decreased (green arrow).

But the latter is the amount of change and not the power to change. There is evidence that this is correct because the Noble prize physics 2006 was awarded to G.F. Smoot (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8s11274p). The dipole in the CMBR proved that our solar system has an absolute velocity in relation to the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field shows to be a rest frame and the absolute velocity of the solar system is about 368 km/s. The consequence is that matter – a local concentration of energy – is transferred by the structure of quantized space. That is only possible if every unit has an identical amount of “power” to change its variable properties. No matter the amount of surface area of the unit at a certain moment.

Gravitation emerges at the moment that matter – local concentrations of energy – was created in the universe. But gravitation is a difficult topic. It is clear that Einstein’s theory of General relativity is “only” a model. Unfortunately Newtonian gravity isn’t 100% correct either. It shows that Newtonian gravity is a force from vacuum space around (in line with the Higgs mechanism). Its influence must be instantaneous but that is not enough to predict the stability of the orbits of the planets in the solar system. The problem is Christian Huygens theory of circular motion. It is hailed as an example of modern physics but there is no underlying clarification. And one aspect must be the aberration of the light of stars (relative position).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

many thanks for the important (and rare) information about Parmenides of Elea. As well as links that will allow me to learn more about this insightful scientist who lived so long ago but spoke about things that are only being revealed today.

Now I can start any of my speeches with a story about Parmenides and smoothly move on to presenting my ideas, which, it turns out, have a long and serious foundation.

I am very pleased with your letter.

Yours, Mikhail Dulin

Dear Stefano Quattrini

Sorry, I realize that I only reacted on the bold sentence in your comment without a relation to Maxwell’s ideas.

At the moment the local concentration of energy within the electromagnetic field (vacuum space) arrive at a certain threshold, the enclosed scalar(s) of the Higgs field decrease its magnitude. The result is that more energy can be concentrated from the electromagnetic field around (geometrical “laws”). This “surplus” of energy is what was termed “rest mass”. The whole process results in the creation of a rest mass carrying particle.

We know that rest mass carrying particles create an influence that we have termed gravitation. Without rest mass (e.g. an electron) a particle has no gravitational field on its own although that doesn’t mean that a gravitational field doesn’t influence an electron.

Now you have to decide what kind of mechanism is responsible for the gravitational influence.

If gravity is a field, we can choose between a scalar field, a vector field or a topological field (the latter like the universal electric field).

Newtonian gravity describes some kind of a vector field. Not a real field because Newton supposed that gravity is an attracting force between objects (comparable with a local electrostatic field). But that cannot be true because without a second object around there is still a gravitational force. Besides that, the influence of gravitation is instantaneous. If not, the orbits of the planets in our solar system are not stable if we use Newtonian gravity to calculate the orbits.

Einstein’s theory of General relativity predicts that local concentrations of energy force space itself to curve. The local concentration of energy is obtained from the universal electric field around. The nature of energy is surface area, in line with E = m c2. The surface area itself is the boundary of the units of the structure of the electromagnetic field (discrete space). Thus if we concentrate energy somewhere in vacuum space we are decreasing the average amount of surface area of every unit because it is transferred to the centre of the involved volume. This is 3D topology and the difference between the average unit and units in the centre of the concentration is the amount of surface area. Actually this is what we have termed “deformation” in topology.

Now there is a fundamental problem because Einstein proposed that a concentration of energy will force space itself to curve. But energy is deformed surface area, in line with his formula E = m c2. Therefore it is mathematically impossible that matter – local concentrations of energy – can curve the volume of the universe.

There are 2 universal conservation laws, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. But momentum is not a singular property, it is a mixture of energy and vectors. The conservation of the energy in momentum is already covered by the law of conservation of energy. In other words, energy and vectors are conserved in our universe. Energy is the universal electric field and vectors is the magnetic field. Both fields are corresponding fields thus a quantum of energy within the universal electric field generates a corresponding vector within the magnetic field (and visa versa).

It is the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field in vacuum space that concentrate energy. The concentration results in the creation of matter (rest mass carrying particles) and that is why we can speculate that gravity is a weaker macroscopic “residue” of the energy concentration mechanism that creates matter.

Unfortunately, the concentration of energy creates rotational motion. Not only at the microcosm (spin) but at every scale size (even black holes rotate). So I cannot interpret Einstein’s curved spacetime as the geometrical representation of a weaker macroscopic “residue” of the energy concentration mechanism.

But if the gravitational influence is not a creation of the universal electric field, it must be a vector field. That means that long range gravitational vectors can influence the electromagnetic field (like the gravitational influence on electromagnetic waves). Because local decreased scalars are the cause of the vectorization of the flat scalar field around the decreased scalar. Actually a push force from vacuum space around the matter object. In line with Louis Rancourt and Philip Tattersall gravitational experiments.

So I am afraid that Maxwell ideas about gravitation as a manifestation of energy (like Einstein) don’t solve the theoretical problems. But maybe you have better arguments.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

let's analyze a bit, in a simple but effective fashion, a configuration of bodies that involves gravitation, maybe the simplest phenomenology at first order approximation.

a) Let's take in outer space two massive homogeneous spheres at rest, a symmetrical two-body problem. S1 and S2 same rest mass m and radius R.

b) The spheres define an "isolated system" from other bodies...

roughly a system of a temperature of 2k of the CMBR.

c) By applying Newtonian gravitation which holds good, the spheres will begin to move towards the center of mass C of the system, located in the center of the line joining each center of mass.

d) S1 and S2 will progressively accelerate, till colliding with each other at distance R from C.

e) let's assume that the collision is inelastic with no debree (no scattered pieces) so that only thermal energy originated, all above the 2K

f) A net flux of Electromagnetic radiation will be emitted from the new body which is the sum SC= S1+S2.

g) Since rest mass stays the same as m, the radiated energy originates from the same kinetic energy prior to the collision.

h) To a first-order approximation the kinetic energy is 2(1/2 mvf2 ) = mvf2 where vf is the speed at which S1 and S2 collided.

i) The overall system S1 and S2 from its initial condition, gave away the energy mvf2 to reduce to SC. SC has now a "binding energy" -mvf2

l) That energy is considered negative since it was given away.....radiated away... gravitation corresponds to an energy depletion..

m) we face a negative value of field energy, only because it was assumed, by convention, that the energy of stationary bodies at rest in deep space is 0.

n) that assumption brings to a "negative-definite energy", that cannot exist (as Maxwell said, Dirac too) it is absurd.

o) it is strictly necessary a background with an enormous energy density where gravitational energy represents just a local depletion of it, a bump over the ocean, same as what Maxwell said.

p) The curved space of GR manages to model to a certain degree such depletion using the artifact of the diffeomorphism (acting on the artifact of the space-time).. the main point is that in GR no field energy density is admitted so the limitation comes quite quick and Dark matter emerges...

Dear Stefano Quattrini

Your description of the “experiment” rely on classic physics/phenomenological physics. If the purpose of the experiment is to show that space must contain an enormous amount of energy, your conclusion is 100% correct.

However, if I translate your experiment into Parmenides’ concept, the underlying reality that “creates” your experiment has a spatial structure. But the concentration of energy in phenomenological reality means that every unit of the structure don’t collapse under influence of local concentrations of energy. Even if the local concentration of energy is the largest black hole in the universe. Thus the consequence is that the energy of every unit of the structure of discrete space – Parmenides’ concept – is infinite. But because energy is (the power to create) geometrical change it is better to state that the resistance against topological deformation of every unit of the structure is infinite (because the resistant against deformation is squared).

However, energy isn’t positive or negative. That are added qualifications that are only true from a certain point of view. For example, if I want to describe the topological deformation of a body with invariant volume, a push from 1 side that deforms the surface area, will result in a corresponding “pop up” of the same amount of volume that was pushed away at the other side (because the volume is invariant). If I have to describe the deformation I have to choose how to describe the input deformation and the corresponding output deformation of the invariant volume. I can use the qualification positive and negative – or conversely – but it is just a choice to facilitate reliable calculations.

Try to imagine Parmenides’ concept of an underlying reality that is an enormous invariant volume that has a structure and every unit of the structure has identical basic dynamical properties. Every unit has the same “power” to change its variable properties thus it is obvious that every unit changes in a quantized way. Because the change of the shapes of all the units must be synchronized. In line with the existence of the universal conservation laws in physics (energy and momentum).

The consequence is that at the moment “NOW” every unit of the structure of the universe transfers the same amount of topological deformation (Planck’s constant). It doesn’t matter if it is a unit somewhere in a void between the galaxies or a unit in the centre of our sun or even a black hole. Every unit transfers 1 fixed amount of topological deformation. Anyway, in physics we don’t talk about the structure of the universe, we talk about the structure of the electromagnetic field. But that’s the same because the flat Higgs field is the so called “vector space” in QM (mediating the vectors of the magnetic field and the vectors of the gravitational field).

In other words, our concept of the nature of energy in physics is a bit limited. We like to use the classical/phenomenological way of reasoning but that has limitations (the result is a lasting stagnation in theoretical physics).

Nevertheless, your conclusion is correct.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Dear Stefano Quattrini

I suppose that you have already noted that each of us have totally different ideas about “the most correct conceptual framework that clarifies physical reality”.

Thus if you are happy with the ideas you use to determine physical reality, I don’t want to change it. I became a researcher because I wanted to understand physical reality. I didn’t want a scientific job, writing books about physics or even my name in the text books. It is a bit selfish but that’s the way I like to do research.

So I wish you a lot of success to solve all those theoretical problems in the way you like it.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Neverthelss I communicate my viewpoint on vacuum energy density which is inevitable from the expectation values of QFT.

@all

Hats off to the ancient sages of philosophy and science!

Thank you for your concerns, comments, arguments and information, and hats off to your knowledge, talent, persevere, and scholarly virtue!

I'm sorry, but for special reasons the link you provided, www.nytimes.com, us.archive.org..., like Wikipedia, Google series, youtube, twitter, facebook, etc., is not accessible. I will try to access it by other means.

Although my language, comprehension, and time are limited, it is clear that I have been well inspired by everyone's ideas and arguments here and hope to incorporate them into my research.

It is expected that each individual's research will give a boost to physics.

Best Regards, Chian FAN