- #31
ConformalGrpOp
- 49
- 0
Unless there are further postings on this thread, this will likely be my last post here. Any further posts will likely be in a different thread dedicated to the implications of conformal transformations which produce solutions to Maxwell's equations which exhibit evolving wave numbers.
I introduced the discussion on this thread regarding questions pertaining to the understanding that solutions to Maxwell's equations permitted only EM waves with constant wave numbers. Chalnoth kindly explained why this has been understood to be the case.
In investigating the subject further, I was not entirely satisfied however, with the history of how this prevailing concept, so deeply embedded in the scientific foundation of modern physics, came to be accepted with essentially no critical examination since the time of Maxwell's great contributions to our understanding of electromagnetism.
It appears that the real reason this circumstance came to pass has to do with the fact that a great deal of experimental work, in fact, was performed which examined the properties of light as far as could possibly be tested. Despite all these experiments, including ones that continue to be performed to this day, never once did any experiment ever provide even one iota of justification for considering that light could behave in a manner that could not be fully tested using a local experimental apparatus.
Moreover, the fundamental theoretical and experimental ground work for understanding the principal properties of light were well settled before 1905, and in particular, before the development of the analytical paradigm of four dimensional space-time. Thus, from an analytical standpoint, the only possible solutions to Maxwell's equations produced waves with constant wave numbers.
In fact, even if it was conceived that light might behave differently than our local experiments indicated (which it seems likely that some leading scientists at the turn of the 20th century contemplated), there was no pausible theoretical basis for such a concept, and there was no possibility of performing an experiment to find it out (at least until relatively recently). Therefore, the only indication that something was not quite right with our observational paradigm are anomalous events which defy ready explanation using our standard working model.
Be that as it may, in this circumstance, scientists clearly have no choice but to tentatively accept what is known from the best evidence available as representative of the actual verifiable/falsifiable state of our physical world. The only thing left to consider then, is the extent to which our operating theory of the universe is inconsistent with observation, and at most, catalog the discrepancies, while also endeavoring to conceive of possible mechanisms which might plausibly explain the anomalous observational events in a way that is consistent with our general theory. This remarkable state of affairs has permitted the proliferation ad absurdum of indulgently imaginative, even elegent speculation in the form of conjectures and proposed conceptually plausible solutions which few conceive as having any likely relevance to physical reality (as may be knowable by human beings).
It now is quite clear that, insofar as the Minkowskian space-time construct provides a superior analytical framework for representing the behavior of physical systems, it is possible to have solutions to Maxwell's equations that define waves with evolving wave numbers. Such waves propagate in a unique space-time which is distinct from what is locally observable. The only way such a phenomena can be tested is by an experiment which involves the two way propagation of a signal from a local source to a remote receiver/calibrator/retransmitter which then repropagates the received signal back to the local source. In fact, any effort to falsify the possibility that light propagates in a space-time that results in evolving wave numbers that is based on observations alone is doomed to fail. That is to say, in cannot be assumed, a priori, that Minkowski metric is the metric governing the propagation of light in space-time, and most importantly, it is not possible to prove what metric governs the space-time in which light propagates without performing the described experiment (or a functional analog to it).
It may therefore be stated that, for the first time since the discovery of the nebular red shift, a theory exists which is capable of providing an verifiable alternative to recession/expansion as an explanation for the red shift. In fact, the analytics suggest very strongly that the value H0/2c governs the scale parameter of the metric which defines the space-time in which light propagates. That this is the case means that our interpretation of data from observations of light propagating from distant sources will require comprehensive revision implicating a paradigm shift for astrophysics and cosmology.
Given the nature of the theory, it can be expected that those working in the field of general relativity will face significant challenges in relating this new concept of the space-time in which light is propagating to their general relativistic models after conceiving that the imputed roles given to dark matter and dark energy in their models are, by and large, superfluous to the physical interpretation of observable events occurring within the evolving the universe.
It is quite possible that some individuals who are currently active in the field will recognize the important implications of the analysis. However, it is conceivable that it may take as many as two or three generations before the relevance of the concept receives broader recognition and the motivation is given for the performance of an experiment to determine the question. In the interim, we will continue to be living in a scientific epoch dominated by theories which provide the impetus for the futile search for evidence of the existence of dark matter and dark energy. I just want to thank the contributors to the thread, and especially Chalnoth for his willingness to indulge my inquiry.
I introduced the discussion on this thread regarding questions pertaining to the understanding that solutions to Maxwell's equations permitted only EM waves with constant wave numbers. Chalnoth kindly explained why this has been understood to be the case.
In investigating the subject further, I was not entirely satisfied however, with the history of how this prevailing concept, so deeply embedded in the scientific foundation of modern physics, came to be accepted with essentially no critical examination since the time of Maxwell's great contributions to our understanding of electromagnetism.
It appears that the real reason this circumstance came to pass has to do with the fact that a great deal of experimental work, in fact, was performed which examined the properties of light as far as could possibly be tested. Despite all these experiments, including ones that continue to be performed to this day, never once did any experiment ever provide even one iota of justification for considering that light could behave in a manner that could not be fully tested using a local experimental apparatus.
Moreover, the fundamental theoretical and experimental ground work for understanding the principal properties of light were well settled before 1905, and in particular, before the development of the analytical paradigm of four dimensional space-time. Thus, from an analytical standpoint, the only possible solutions to Maxwell's equations produced waves with constant wave numbers.
In fact, even if it was conceived that light might behave differently than our local experiments indicated (which it seems likely that some leading scientists at the turn of the 20th century contemplated), there was no pausible theoretical basis for such a concept, and there was no possibility of performing an experiment to find it out (at least until relatively recently). Therefore, the only indication that something was not quite right with our observational paradigm are anomalous events which defy ready explanation using our standard working model.
Be that as it may, in this circumstance, scientists clearly have no choice but to tentatively accept what is known from the best evidence available as representative of the actual verifiable/falsifiable state of our physical world. The only thing left to consider then, is the extent to which our operating theory of the universe is inconsistent with observation, and at most, catalog the discrepancies, while also endeavoring to conceive of possible mechanisms which might plausibly explain the anomalous observational events in a way that is consistent with our general theory. This remarkable state of affairs has permitted the proliferation ad absurdum of indulgently imaginative, even elegent speculation in the form of conjectures and proposed conceptually plausible solutions which few conceive as having any likely relevance to physical reality (as may be knowable by human beings).
It now is quite clear that, insofar as the Minkowskian space-time construct provides a superior analytical framework for representing the behavior of physical systems, it is possible to have solutions to Maxwell's equations that define waves with evolving wave numbers. Such waves propagate in a unique space-time which is distinct from what is locally observable. The only way such a phenomena can be tested is by an experiment which involves the two way propagation of a signal from a local source to a remote receiver/calibrator/retransmitter which then repropagates the received signal back to the local source. In fact, any effort to falsify the possibility that light propagates in a space-time that results in evolving wave numbers that is based on observations alone is doomed to fail. That is to say, in cannot be assumed, a priori, that Minkowski metric is the metric governing the propagation of light in space-time, and most importantly, it is not possible to prove what metric governs the space-time in which light propagates without performing the described experiment (or a functional analog to it).
It may therefore be stated that, for the first time since the discovery of the nebular red shift, a theory exists which is capable of providing an verifiable alternative to recession/expansion as an explanation for the red shift. In fact, the analytics suggest very strongly that the value H0/2c governs the scale parameter of the metric which defines the space-time in which light propagates. That this is the case means that our interpretation of data from observations of light propagating from distant sources will require comprehensive revision implicating a paradigm shift for astrophysics and cosmology.
Given the nature of the theory, it can be expected that those working in the field of general relativity will face significant challenges in relating this new concept of the space-time in which light is propagating to their general relativistic models after conceiving that the imputed roles given to dark matter and dark energy in their models are, by and large, superfluous to the physical interpretation of observable events occurring within the evolving the universe.
It is quite possible that some individuals who are currently active in the field will recognize the important implications of the analysis. However, it is conceivable that it may take as many as two or three generations before the relevance of the concept receives broader recognition and the motivation is given for the performance of an experiment to determine the question. In the interim, we will continue to be living in a scientific epoch dominated by theories which provide the impetus for the futile search for evidence of the existence of dark matter and dark energy. I just want to thank the contributors to the thread, and especially Chalnoth for his willingness to indulge my inquiry.
Last edited: