Two books that could transform your understanding of reality:
The physics of material reality as never before -
in beautiful pictures and flowing poetry.
A radically new, but ages old, perspective on the nature of material reality.
A layman's view of
the scientific issues.
In these books
Dr Grahame Blackwell presents, in two quite different styles, his findings from ten years of scientific investigation and careful mathematical analysis.
(No maths in either book.)
[Full maths available here]
Check out the blog.
Here you'll find everything from the Marx Brothers to singing bowls, from grass-hoppers to goldfish - and much, much more - all in the name of science.
"The perfect balance of new science, humour & helpful info that people can relate to in their lives", "I am impressed! I found it easy to read, not boring at all! very interesting and have subscribed for more!", "clear and precise, easy to read and acutely interesting. I like the user-friendly presentation. I have subscribed!"
Subscribe free for notifications of new postings.
Elementary Sub-Atomic Particles: The Earliest Adaptive Systems
[Blackwell, G., Kybernetes Vol. 40 Issue 1/2, pp 200-212, April 20th 2011] [link]
Extended Abstract and Conclusion
[Free full transcript of this paper with every book order]
[See a non-technical overview of the main concepts in this paper]
[See later paper on Gravitation and General Relativity]
[See also Notes on standard tests of Special Relativity]
This paper considers a perspective on particulate matter as being formed from closed loops of waveform energy flow, consistent with observations by de Broglie, Schrödinger and others and supported by recent research findings. It demonstrates that all experimentally verified findings of Special Relativity (SR) may be derived directly from such a model. It further shows a clear form of auto-adaptive behaviour exhibited by such structures.
A generalised closed-loop energy flow model is analysed from first principles.
Motion-dependent time dilation, invariance of the measured speed of light, the Lorentz transformation, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2) and speed-related increase in apparent mass all follow naturally from this structure. Given this view of matter objective invariance of the speed of light relative to all inertial states of motion is an unnecessary and insupportable assumption. A unique objective rest frame (subject to Hubble expansion of space) is identified. All elementary sub-atomic particles owe their longevity to a non-destructive state-change response to energy input, referred to as 'motion'. A radically new perspective on time is presented. A possible causal explanation for particle-antiparticle asymmetry is identified.
Closed timelike curves are not a possibility. Further implications for all fields of physics are very extensive.
No conflict between superluminal technologies and causality. Over and above this, possible practical implications are too extensive to be enumerated.
Totally original and of significant potential value in various respects.
[Body of paper]
The cyclic-photon perspective on particulate matter has been shown to account fully for all verifiable tenets of Special Relativity, in a manner that is consistent with a wide range of other experimental findings. It further shows every long-lived elementary particle to be an auto-adaptive structure in which self-balancing electromagnetic field effects automatically ensure transitions between stable states in response to energy exchanges with its environment. This, virtually by definition, makes the elementary particle the earliest adaptive system in the universe.
The notion of inertial frame equivalence, as assumed in Special Relativity, has been shown to be not only unnecessary but also incompatible with this fully consistent explanation of a substantial body of experimental evidence. A unique objectively static reference frame has been identified, setting aside any possibility of conflict between superluminal communication and the principle of causality.
A radically new and coherent perspective on the nature of time has been shown to also be consistent with this view of particle structure and with that supporting evidence. A possible causal explanation has been advanced for particle-antiparticle asymmetry, consistent with the structure of matter proposed here and the extensive scientific evidence supporting that proposal.
This new insight into the nature of material structure offers very significant opportunities for scientific and technological developments in a wide variety of arenas.
Notes on standard tests of Special Relativity (not included in paper)
Certain investigative studies involving practical tests have become widely regarded as confirmation of the tenets of Special Relativity, including: (a) the absolute invariance of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames; (b) the equivalence (symmetry) of all inertial reference frames with regard to fundamental physical principles; (c) relativistic time dilation, including what is generally termed 'second order (or transverse) Doppler shift'.
These notes present an analysis of those aspects of reality tested by the four primary studies cited in support of Special Relativity, illustrating how those aspects of reality appear in the light of the perspective presented in this paper and how that compares with the perspective of SR in each case. The studies considered are:
(1) Fizeau (1859); (2) Michelson & Morley (1887); (3) Ives & Stilwell (1941); (4) Hasselkamp et al. (1979)
(1) Fizeau demonstrated that the speed of light through water was affected by motion of the water, but not by way of simple addition of the two speeds. The resulting light speed was shown to agree closely with that given by the SR formula for addition of velocities, i.e. considering the speed of light to be invariant in the rest frame of the body of water (or other translucent medium), whether static or moving.
An analysis of the factors involved from this new perspective yields a result, using Fizeau's own experimental data, that agrees with the result given by SR to fifteen significant figures. When considering the difference from the result given by simple addition of the two speeds, that difference as analysed from the perspective given in this paper agrees with that given by SR to eight significant figures - an exceptionally high level of agreement for such a fine detail. Given that Einstein himself regarded Fizeau's experiment as a strong endorsement of SR, it must be seen as an equally strong endorsement of this new perspective.
[For light passing through water moving at ten thousand miles an hour - considerably faster than in Fizeau's own experiment - this new view agrees with SR on resultant speed of light to nine or ten significant figures, depending on whether the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction factor is applied to the moving body of water. On a measure of difference from simple addition of speeds, there is agreement with SR to four or five significant figures, which is a rather greater degree of accuracy than that offered by any known experimental protocol.]
(2) Michelson & Morley demonstrated that light travelling transverse to the earth's motion takes the same time to travel the same distance (on earth) as light travelling collinearly with that motion. This was taken as conclusive evidence that the speed of light is independent of the reference frame from which it is measured.
This new paper neither refutes nor endorses Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (which is also a feature of SR - i.e. rejection of L-F contraction implies rejection of SR). However such motion-based contraction is fully consistent with the perspective presented here and stands in its own right as a well-documented concept independently of SR - Lorentz himself declared it to be ".. the only possible [interpretation of the facts]" and observed that it could be directly extrapolated from already-known facts relating to effects of motion on electrostatic forces.
Application of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction in the context of this new perspective yields results that are in every case indistinguishable from those of SR or of Michelson & Morley's own findings.
(3) Ives & Stilwell modified Michelson & Morley's experimental setup to include a test for relativistic time dilation. Since the new perspective presented here predicates time dilation precisely in accordance with the formula given by SR, subject to the minor additional consideration that the laboratory frame will itself almost certainly be in motion in absolute terms (an effect which is self-cancelling to a varying degree), any experiment to test for motion-based time dilation will inevitably result in a very high degree of agreement between SR and the perspective presented here. [This issue is considered further in case study (4) below.]
(4) Hasselkamp et al. measured the phenomenon referred to as 'second order (or transverse) Doppler effect' - actually an artefact of time dilation affecting emission and absorption of photons by particles in motion. Their experiment was based on the premise that the detector was static in the laboratory frame and measured time-dilated emission frequencies of particles moving at relativistic speeds.
From the perspective presented in this new paper the laboratory and detector are themselves in motion in absolute terms, arguably at speeds of up to 600 km/second (see here), giving time dilation effects at the reception as well as the emission stage. For typical emitter particle speeds as used in the Hasselkamp experiment and a receptor moving at 600 km/s: if emitter particles are moving transverse to laboratory motion, results from this new view agree with those from SR to six significant figures; in the worst-case scenario where emitter particles are moving collinearly with laboratory motion, variation between results from this view and from SR is comparable to the error margins as observed in the Hasselkamp experimental findings.
In summary: None of those experimental findings that are regarded as strong evidence for Special Relativity give any reason whatsoever for favouring the conventional view of SR over the view presented in this paper. All of those findings can equally well be regarded as equally strong evidence that the the perspective presented in this paper constitutes the true representation of the nature of reality.