Cosmologists are chasing invisible rainbows in the sky....

[SDK]

I will try, but that will take me a while to put together as short as possible, yet hopefully clearly. Even so, it will be the most likely a several pages long write up even without the full scale of reasoning, how I arrived at it.

With kind regards, Slavek

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

What I am saying is, that when I am able to detect some properties of something at a distance, so that those properties come in any other way but by a direct physical contact, the information about that something has to be carried somehow and somehow detected from that carrier.

There is no difference between "direct physical contact" and any other kind of interaction. When my finger pushes against the table, nothing has changed from when it was at a distance from the table except the relative strength of the types of force at play.

May be another example and that is smell, which science ascribes to the properties of carrier molecules. Can you honestly state, that when I smell whatever identifiable, which I am by far not in a direct contact with, that some molecules of that identifiable have not carried the information about the source to me? In other words: "Where there's smoke there's fire." Most of the whole science is built upon this principle, including physics.

Why would I state that smell is not carried by molecules? A chemical reaction like smell is quite specifically the exchange of charge/mass at close range by two or more atoms or molecules. Natural philosophy was most certainly not built on the idea of "information carriers".

Are you trying to state, that I/we have the duty to depend with my/our assessment of whatever on some fellow(s) who has(ve) been dead for 100 or more years, or even some contemporary "authority", rather than on my/our own judgment? If that were to be the case and that's how we should think, then we wouldn't have any science. All we would have would be a common faith. Just because some "authority" postulated, proclaimed, defined, assumed, imposed etc. whatever limitations upon his/her thinking about anything, does not mean that such an "authority" has been correct. After all, every single theory so far, at least those of consensus, from the beginning of any records of natural philosophy, is only the last one in a row of invalidated ones. That is one good reason, why one should not pay too much attention to them.

Like most people here I quote to show relevance with what other people have thought, or to show paths of investigation if others want to read more, and so on. You're creating a straw man by bringing up "authorities". And one extreme is no better than the other – not paying the proper attention to the ideas of the past, you are apt to misunderstand them. One should neither be beholden to authority, nor dismissive of the work of the many highly intelligent people who left us great works of art and science through history.

For example, try to explain within the limitations of physics you have just expressed, which pressure, or pressures are responsible for the development of say human being from two cells, an egg and a sperm, and how those pressures may possibly do it? That it is not physics? That is correct and that is the very reason, why David Talbott is trying to bring some interdisciplinary sense into the absolutely insanely compartmentalized "science".

I really don't understand what you mean by limitations of physics that I expressed unless you mean the fact that there is no need to invoke information carriers? I don't see it as a limitation. Since the biological development of a human body from a zygote is a series of chemical, electro-chemical and electric interactions within the growing body and between the body and its environment, the types of forces (pressures) involved are mainly electromagnetic, although gravity provides the necessary conditions of the environment. If you are trying to infer the need to amalgamate something outside of physical science in order to explain life, why? Science is just philosophy, and all proper philosophies are practical, otherwise they have no meaning. Amalgamate away if it works.

How do you propose, that any pressure can at times give me the information about what someone else has on his/her mind, including say an intent to give me totally unexpectedly a ring complete with his/her ID? How do you propose I can avoid getting nailed with speeding, because I have learned to "smell" cops intent on nailing whoever at half a mile? What misinterpretation of information theory? I do not even have a clue, what is that theory about and I feel no need to live according to somebody else's confined dream world.

If any of those things actually happen, so what? How do you propose the moon reaches out to you with its gravity, and you back to it? And you don't need to know anything about a theory to be influenced by ideas that get disseminated because of it.

[comingfrom]

Why not? If there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
And now, someone is saying there's a new type of Hydrogen at the center of the rainbow too.

~~

Today the Universe is in a classical-like state, so now the beta value should be near zero, and estimates performed by other groups of physicists indeed suggest that it does not exceed 0.01. This small value for the beta function means that currently the spacetime rainbow is very narrow and cannot be detected experimentally.

This clip is in a classical-like state. In classical times we would have called it gobbledegook.
I had to go read in context, to decipher it.

Today...
Could tomorrow's state of the Universe be different? better? bigger rainbows? less classical-like and more quantum-like?

... the Universe is in a classical-like state...
Meaning, classical physics didn't have "different versions of spacetime", like we have now with quantum physics (explained in the summary section at the beginning of the article), and neither does the Universe. At least, not today (the 14th Jan 2016).

... so now the beta value should be near zero...
The article had just previously stated, "in conditions similar to classical it is close to zero, whereas in truly quantum conditions its value is close to one."

... estimates performed by other groups of physicists indeed suggest that it does not exceed 0.01 ...
That's still much closer to zero, than to one. Much closer to classical physics prediction, than Quantum physics prediction.

... This small value for the beta function means that currently the spacetime rainbow is very narrow and cannot be detected experimentally.
That doesn't mean classical physics got it more right than quantum physics, it means the Universe is still living in Newton's time. The time of classical physics.

The Universe is wrong, not quantum physics.
The Universe is still in a classical-like state, and hasn't caught up with the quantum physicists yet.
And the Universe is wrong such that the correctness of quantum physics cannot be detected experimentally.
How convenient.
We have just been told they can't be disproved.
Even though they also confessed, their estimation was out by a factor of one hundred, compared to classical physics being out by a hundredth.

~~
I thought this was another classic statement in the article, which speaks to the state of their field.
Also beginning with the word "Today".

"Today there are many competing theories of quantum gravity. Therefore, we formulated our model in very general terms so that it can be applied to any of them.

How can such a general model, which can be applied to any theory, give a result we can be confident about?

And isn't this also a clear confession, that they have no firm foundation theory, on which to base their pronouncements? and that they are fudging.

I think,
Tomorrow, the Universe will not be a more quantum friendly place.
~Paul

[webolife]

Slavek,

To answer an earlier question regarding how pressure "carries information" about a light source -- optical ray diagrams describe simply and completely how an image is created of the source. The image is a representation of the shape of the source, and colors correspond to substance thereof. Vision, perception, information.
Simplest example is a camera obscura or pinhole. A finite [vs infinitesimal] diameter is of course required because a ray is not phenomenal, so we must imagine the activity of a light beam, albeit narrow. When I refer to vectors or rays, I take into account that the geometric ray is a non-phenomenal concept. That being said, the smaller the pinhole diameter, the more precise the image, as we all understand. Electromagnetic wave theory does not explain how an image is made, always imaging is explained by use of optical rays. How can a wave front, virtually flat from any significant distance, impinging upon a detector relay any coherent information about a light source. Olber's paradox comes into play. However the central line of sight is modeled directly as an optical ray, which I simply redefine as a pressure vector.

What is not so obvious to one who has not done the experiments is that a spectrum is also an image of the light source, elicited as a pressure gradient about the central line of sight, by means of a pinhole, pupil, slit [whether single or double, the latter of which can be demonstrated to not be an interference phenomenon], lens, raindrop or ice crystal reflection, prismatic refraction, or even the simplest hair beamsplitter or edge [ie. half a slit!]. To make this clear and obvious simply compare the spectrum of say a CFL with that of a candle flame using a diffraction grating. The slit end of a basic spectroscope is unnecessary and obscures the actual shape of the source... if such a slit device is used [ perhaps to block glare?] make sure it is large enough to see the entire shape of the light source element [filament, tube, flame, neon word, etc.] and the spectral image thereof, sometimes referred to as a flash spectrum. This will work with a single or double slit device held close to the eye. The fact that the entire source and background scene are clearly visible imaged through the slit [yes also the double slit] should be proof enough to an open-minded observer that the reiterating spectrum imagined to be interfering waves is actual a series of exact images of the source, elicited along the "radius" of the pressure gradient. The slit is merely a deformed pinhole, and works optically identically to the pinhole. Working the slit[s] back and forth before your eye will show you that the slit itself is not causing light to become distorted either through diffraction or interference, but that the spectrum is an image of the light field of the source. Once I saw this, I've looked at light through a different spectacle ever since. The rainbows/spectra you used to never see before, you can now elicit at will by merely squeezing your eyes to a narrower slit. Just as a large pinhole cannot produce a clear image, the eye cannot elicit the spectral "light field" without assistive devices or techniques. Or another way of looking at it, if your lens focused light in the center of your eyeball rather than at your retinal surface, you would be seeing the spectral fields everywhere you looked. With a little more observational practice, you can see that a hair beamsplitter [a hair from the head will suffice], or an opaque edge will elicit the same spectral image apparitions.
"Newton's Rings" are another example of this imaging phenomenon. What I am hereby setting forth is that the light "pressure field" is physically phenomenal, observable, and measurable.

Consider this information, whether or not you reach the further ramifications of my studies, which suggest that light action is in fact vectored toward [not away from] the source, and instantaneous across distance. Not infinitely fast [a logical impossibility, as if something were moving], but instant [as logically exigent, if something were connected].

Don't forget: A rainbow is "here" in the eye, not "there" in the sky.

[Roshi]

I may only recommend anyone interested to grab a prism, do the classical setup with white light refraction into spectral bands and grab a set of plastic color filters, let's say from Edmund Scientific, and start inserting different colors into the beam of light before and after the prism. You are in for a great surprise. Being at it, you may also try a polarizing filter and see, what that does to the bending of differently oriented "polarized" white light by your prism. It may and certainly should shake your faith in the fundamentals of mainstream "physics". The Leprechauns of this church have for centuries been convincing us to chase just about what the name of the thread states, invisible rainbows, with a pot of gold underneath.

With kind regards, Slavek.

I got myself a prism, and I did the experiment using a circular polarizer filter from a photo camera. Nothing happens, when the filter is in front or behind the prism, the rainbow is still there. I did rotate it in all positions. What should I be looking for? Do I need another kind of polarizer?
The light was sunlight coming through a glass window.

I don't have color filters yet, except a "warm filter" also from a photo camera, this one also did nothing.

[Webbman]

your eye detects the energy of the light. like a wire, to much energy and it burns up.

your retina is basically a solar panel.

What we perceive is refined approximation but it is still a detector and thus requires an input.

we see different colors because light bounces and transfers energy when it does. The retina and a solar panel are awesome expressions of this.

[SDK]

I got myself a prism, and I did the experiment using a circular polarizer filter from a photo camera. Nothing happens, when the filter is in front or behind the prism, the rainbow is still there. I did rotate it in all positions. What should I be looking for? Do I need another kind of polarizer?
The light was sunlight coming through a glass window.

I don't have color filters yet, except a "warm filter" also from a photo camera, this one also did nothing.

Thank you Roshi. At least one fellow.

Nothing happens. That is exactly the point. Polarizer is supposed to filter off one orientation of light waves. Oriented parallel to the long axis of the prism, there should be no way the light waves, parallel to the prism axis, could be possibly bent. Now, when you go after the manufacturing of the polarizers, you find out that they are made of a monolayer of round plastic cells, which are then stretched in a single direction. Therefore, you get a layer of a grid of stretched, mutually attached optical lenses, attached to a clear plastic substrate. Therefore, this grid of long lenses diffuses light as observed and lets through only the light which passes through the flat boundaries of individual polarizer cells and a part of the long, central axis of each cell, all those areas being aligned in one direction.

Should you have two polarizers and put them cross wise, you would find out that they let light through as a small spot exactly in line between your eye ad the light source, while not blocking, but diffusing the rest of the light.

And now for the color filters. I have no idea which color you used, but it does not really matter. They all do the same. They change the colors of the spectrum on the screen as can be expected, say a green filter creates blue with what would have been yellow spectral band, no matter whether you place such a filter in front of the prism, or past it. None the less, the lighted area of each color band remains in it's original place on the screen even after such a change. That means, that the color of light has nothing to do with the angle of refraction. Therefore, the color of light has nothing to do with the basic phenomenon, the sort of a carrier of luminosity, a photon. Color is a different beast and does not belong to a "photon" per se.

And yet another conclusion can be drawn from this simple experimentation. Color filters are no filters, filtering off all but one color, but modulators of whatever it is, which causes the property of color. As simple as that. That is also the reason, why the same say plastic, when thick, shall reflect the same color of light, as it transmits when thin.

And I will give you a bonus Roshi. When you set up a row of inflated party balloons of all possible colors and let a red ruby laser light pas through them one after another, the laser beam blows all of them except a clear one and a red one.

Sooooooo, Light does not have a property of temperature, before it has a chance to interfere with something by its property of color, or better said its borrowed property of the substrate it rides on, and the degree of that interference regulates, how much heat may be released by a specific light ray and a specific material.

As far as I am concerned, the luminous part of light is of a magnetic nature, being a higher order of fractal nature of fields, as opposed to the color property of light, which belongs to the lower field structure order, that is electric (and may be also called gravitational). We are talking for example the torsion fields of Mr. Kozyrev and whatever other names it goes under and there are plenty of them.

With kind regards, Slavek.

[webolife]

Right. There is no "monochromatic" light. Looking at the central line of sight, the colored spectral area "surrounds" the CLOS as a pressure gradient. When the rays are delimited by a focusing device [pinhole, lens/focus, edge, etc. the pressure gradient appears as an image of the light field, just as also the ambient structures, reflections, etc. are imaged. The pressure gradient about a ruby laser beam is limited and reddish, but it is there!
The gradient image is elicited by the detector, and is not a result of wave diffraction or interference, which must most certainly obliterate the image of the light "through" the slit, pinhole, or prism. But it does not! There is the image of the light field along with the image of the room or whatever viewing venue you are in perfect array about the CLOS as you would expect by drawing the optical ray diagram of the imaging setup [ie. inverted, but this inversion has been conditioned by our brain since shortly after birth to look "normal"].
By the way it should be stated for the record that the EM spectrum depicted by the standard model of light yields no explanation whatever for the color violet. Yet it can be easily seen from any light gradient that violet is the direct result of continuity between the blue end of the spectra to the adjoining red end of the next part of the gradient spectrum. Everyone has seen this in a bright rainbow or an oily puddle, but who stops to question?

[webolife]

Webbman, when you said light "bounces" did you mean reflects? there is a certain part of a light beam that is reflected at the surface and a certain amount absorbed. The inherent "elasticity" of the surface, depending on the chemistry, ie. electronic configuration, of the dye or mirror atoms/molecules determines how the light will be transformed in the reflective phase. By the way, a sunlight reflection from say a car window or bumper across the street would be a good venue to study the pressure gradient effect. Just make yourself a pinhole, a single or double slit, and let the imaging begin! Double slits are easily made by a slim slit [~<1mm] divided end to end by a hair. Held close to the eye so that you can see the image of the entire scene, the beamsplitter can be shown to produce a double line at the center of the spectrum as a shadow through the center of the spectral array. And this can be further shown to be not interference, by the remarkable coherence of the image shape, ie. the spectrum will be in the exact shape of the "source"/centroid demonstrated by the central line of sight.

[Webbman]

reflect assumes that energy is not transferred. I believe bounce is more accurate, a perfect mirror would reflect, everything else is a bounce with varying energy transfer based on the material and energy level of the light

of course my structure for a photon is basically a sort of spring. Double helix force strands in a loop and torsioned to whatever energy level. Take away the torsion and your left with an electron again. i.e there is no difference between the electron and light other than the shape.

[webolife]

Reflect works. "Energy" is transferred to the surface at reflection and the ray of reflection is weakened somewhat.

I still don't understand your helical strands, sorry. You use language in an unorthodox way that is losing me. Don't give up.

[Roshi]

SDK thank you for the explanation, but I have no idea what you are talking about I do not know much theory about what light is, except what I remember from high-school, not much. Still I am interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

I did the experiment expecting some disappearance of the rainbow created by the prism or something like that. I understand there are "circular polarizers" and "linear polarizers". Mine was circular. Would a linear polarizer do something else? I will do the experiment with color filters, when I have some colored glass.

[Webbman]

Reflect works. "Energy" is transferred to the surface at reflection and the ray of reflection is weakened somewhat.

I still don't understand your helical strands, sorry. You use language in an unorthodox way that is losing me. Don't give up.

ok

if I have a straight line and I run a wave through it goes from one end to the other. It will quickly come to rest. If I connect the line end to end the wave I put into it ( by banging into it) cannot go out the other side so in order to come to rest it equally distributes the wave to all parts of the ring. Eventually it will slowly come to rest.

Now if I take my loop and I twist it so it looks like an infinity symbol, I change the wave properties again. The structure becomes rigid in the middle and all "reflecting" occurs at the exposed ends. Now my structure gets a trajectory when it hits something but it is still a closed loop so can only come to rest by reflecting off of other things, loosening the middle every time something is hit. The more twists it has, the more energy it has, the smaller the diameter of it. If I remove all the twists I am left with a loop again. If I do something to break the loop I'm left with a line.

its no coincidence that heat, light, and electricity are all linked. They are all the same after all. Strands.

because strands can hookup end to end a loop can be any size and scale starting with the basic unit. One connected end to end. The electron, which I assume matches the circumference of a proton. (this is simplified though because I believe strands are duplex in nature like DNA, but it is the same concept).

[Webbman]

also I don't disagree with your to the source ideas, but they do not apply to light which is already a closed loop. All other connections that make loops do follow your idea of returning to the source. Hence the circuit.

[SDK]

Simplest example is a camera obscura or pinhole. A finite [vs infinitesimal] diameter is of course required because a ray is not phenomenal, so we must imagine the activity of a light beam, albeit narrow. When I refer to vectors or rays, I take into account that the geometric ray is a non-phenomenal concept. That being said, the smaller the pinhole diameter, the more precise the image, as we all understand.

I do understand the concept of beams of light, so this part is fine with me. Almost. One better also take into consideration that the word pinhole better be defined in some way in regards the thickness of the partition, in which the pinhole is made. Whatever reason, I did make one through an ordinary wooden pencil as a kid, the most likely with a red hot pin. The diameter could not be more than 1/32”. Having it, I did take a peak through it and found out that true, it did limit my field of vision severely, but on the other hand it gave me an awesome clarity of the image and right side up as opposed to a camera obscura. I found it interesting then and memorable. I have found out only much later, that Inuits made a good use of this phenomenon with their pinhole “glasses”. I am not even sure of the one thing about the pinhole camera. IMHO, the comparison of the ratio between the actual limits of what the camera seas and the limits of the view on its screen, with respect to the distances of the pinhole from the actual scene and from its image, should show that the rays get bent at the pinhole. It has never occurred to me to test it, though.

Electromagnetic wave theory does not explain how an image is made, always imaging is explained by use of optical rays. How can a wave front, virtually flat from any significant distance, impinging upon a detector relay any coherent information about a light source. Olber's paradox comes into play. However the central line of sight is modeled directly as an optical ray, which I simply redefine as a pressure vector. …..which can be demonstrated to not be an interference phenomenon],

Oh well, yes, grade 8 physics and I had a beef with the textbook refraction schematic, same as with Young double slit. You know, by than I had been on water a lot and I knew both were bull. That is why I have retested both

What is not so obvious to one who has not done the experiments is that a spectrum is also an image of the light source, elicited as a pressure gradient about the central line of sight,

Actually, my original question concerned your term pressure, eventually a pressure gradient. We do know, and it was not Einstein, who came up with it, but got the credit, that there is a definite existence of the photoelectric effect. So, when you state pressure, I confront that idea with the fact, that a steady pressure does not elicit any electric response from say a silver stick, or any conductive material. This is the part of your proposition, which I do not comprehend. What pressure? With it of course comes my question, how do you propose, that any pressure can yield a complex information about the light source. (see below)

With a little more observational practice, you can see that a hair beamsplitter [a hair from the head will suffice], or an opaque edge will elicit the same spectral image apparitions.

Yes, I have observed this on my eyelashes. Unfocusing the eyes is actually also a way to learn how to perceive say human aura. Yet I do not see that as any pressure phenomenon. But the field is preexisting and its individual structural components possess individual state of excitation, which is communicable not by a travelling wave phenomena at some speed, but by the changes of static wave pattern of a flow due to the changes in tension, or energy through such individual components and their composition on a retina, which transfer the information between the source and the detector instantaneously no matter what the distance. This phenomenon of an instant state change has been actually demonstrated and I came to know of it from such actual demonstration. You could also understand it as a quantum leap, never mind Bohr’s incoherent orbital electron state change. His concept is wrong, while the phenomenon is real.

The real analogy works like this.

Setup:
Rotable disc mounted to the 12’ high ceiling, say 24” diameter, to be driven by a synchronous motor.
Vertically aligned rotable disc mounted to floor, again 24” diameter, to be also driven by a synchronous motor.
Side view – a fairly lose rope some 2” thick attached to the ceiling disc some 10” to the left of its rotational axis and again 10” but to the right of the rotational axis of the floor disc.

Procedure:
Both discs start rotating in common direction and the lose rope makes a single arch C. The RPM are being increased and at a certain point, the single arch C breaks in a blink of an eye into double arch S. The RPM are being increased further with nothing happening till a point, when the S wave pattern on the rope breaks again and creates two S’s, one on top of the other. They did not push it any further, as the RPM of the contraption was mechanically fairly high for the setup, but started to slow down the RPM. Now in reverse, the double S wave broke suddenly into a single S, then eventually into a C. I watched it for good half an hour, as they repeated it again and again. I tried to catch the transition between the double S and the S pattern, where it may have started. But both S in double S broke at the same time.

I hope that may tell you, what happens with the valence bond as per the IBM scanning-tunneling microscopy, that is any radial bond between any two “atoms”, when it gets little too excited, before it radiates its energy as a photon (actually two) and drops back to a ground state. That electric cloud the scanning tunneling microscopy measures, hides a magnetic structure of two partly bundled strings of two trapped photons.

In other words, what you interpret as pressure is what I interpret as tension. Yet this tension is very much structured, rather than a bulk with a gradient, and it can and does exert not only attraction along its length, but also sideways and it can also result in no force between any observed bodies at all. That depends on the “circuitry” within a complex system, same as with magneto-electric Birkeland currents among stars and galaxies, which are a perfect analogy save for the Thomson electron theory used in their interpretation.

I have stated before, that the wave of such “etheric” flows, which are the condition of such phenomena, is spatially immovable. So are the undulations and corkscrew patterns of Birkeland magnetic filaments and the associated electric currents. Yet, these “etheric” filaments, being utterly elastic and flexible, also can and do transfer moving waves of a fair few different patterns of structuring along the system, which then pass energy and information along the substrate of “etheric” filaments. The difference between electric field and gravitational field is strictly structural and the two structures can evidently coexist and one can possibly restructure the other.

What I am hereby setting forth is that the light "pressure field" is physically phenomenal, observable, and measurable.

Take out the word “pressure” and I shall agree.

Consider this information, whether or not you reach the further ramifications of my studies, which suggest that light action is in fact vectored toward [not away from] the source, and instantaneous across distance. Not infinitely fast [a logical impossibility, as if something were moving], but instant [as logically exigent, if something were connected].

Don't forget: A rainbow is "here" in the eye, not "there" in the sky.

Yes, it is and thank you for bringing it up. It took me a few days to really comprehend what you are driving at with your concept. I am getting to see that we may be pretty close yet, I see the luminosity of light (say photons) as actually a travelling wave and of a magnetic order of things. It does not really have much in common with the color spectrum. A photon is, as far as I can tell, a process of very localized, progressive bundling of “ethereal” filaments into a rope. Photons of light may come individually and definitely do when produced thermally by valence bonds. But they may even come in trains, as from a broken up magnetic field and the resulting EM bomb radiation, or a nuke.

Have you ever given a serious consideration to: “How does magnetic field retain itself around a magnet?” It is well worth doing. I would also like to thank you, for you have helped me to clarify the spectrum principle.

With kind regards, Slavek.