Faster than Light

Azzam

Maybe calculations (if not explanations) about effects on light speed in GR (the 'real' world, as opposed to SR where there is no effect) need revision, I do not know. But why do you want to keep light speed constant in all frames of reference? [Noting that the concept of frames has nothing to do with observation, per se. It is to do with having a reference against which to compute speed]. Light is just 'something' moving. So its calibrated speed will differ depending on what other moving 'something' one chooses as the reference. Also, as it is 'something' moving, it may be subject to interference by environmental factors (eg state of what it is moving through, gravitational forces of nearby matter) during its travel.

Paul

Pentcho,

Have you read and do you see any validity in CIG Theory? (www.CIGTheory.com)

If not, where has the rationale gone wrong?

And, can you tell me then where the new "space" comes from in my "balloon experiment", posted on this site?

Can you, taking the CIG philosophy of independent and isolated stellar masses (and quantum particles), turning into their own spacetime field densities with newly unfolded quantities (volumes) of Space, apply the theory to other areas of physics/cosmology beyond those solutions I have offered?

For instance, what are its implications on the Flatness Problem?

Also, please confirm that you undersatnd the theory.

THX

doug

Azzam, Paul.

I agree much in optics is not yet applied to theory, and is needed for consistent comprehension. I'm not sure I interpreted your post fully but I believe I understand it and agree. I consider the train and it's contents a 'discrete field' kinetically, as a frame equivalent to all others. I'll try to get to your papers. Have you yet seen mine on a similar basis, the discrete field model (DFM). If you wish to, perhaps tart with an early one; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022 See also the below;

Paul. I believe Bohr taught Heisenberg a good lesson when nearly failing his thesis, that to consider light via a lens he must fully understand how a lens worked. Consider this. we can only 'observe' light by 'interacting' with it. That means the particles of a detector, made of 'matter' so a dielectric 'medium', absorbing the light energy on interaction and re-emitting it (standard atomic scattering). It's wavelength is then changed by detector motion, ergo so then is it's derivative 'frequency'. Time dilation and length contraction are then reduced to Doppler effects, and the LT clarified as a resistance curve.

In this case the 'reference point' must always be the detector. The only question then remaining is, and it is an important one, how do we judge the relative speed of something with which we are NOT directly interacting. Of course by direct interaction with (being consistent) the 'scattering' emissions of the particles of the medium the original signal IS interacting with.

This falsifies your suggestion that observation has no effect on speed. Speed in any lens medium is always c/n in the local kinetic state of the lens. If that v is different to the 'incident medium' the propagation speed thus changes by v as well as c. That is quite revolutionary but logically consistent. Unfortunately, like the elephant in the room discussed earlier, it seems to have been too big to be seen. Can you now see it?

Peter

Paul,

Have read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 the answer there.

to understand the constancy of the speed of light for all frames of reference let's study this thought experiment related to twins paradox.

Sara and Sally are twins. Sally decided to take a trip by her spacecraft. At the first day of Sara's pregnancy, Sally started her trip. The spacecraft was moving with speed 0.87c. Now after Sally computed 4.5 months according to her spacecraft moving clock, she returned to earth. According to SR, when Sally returned to earth after 4.5 months according to her clock she would find the time passed on the earth is not 4.5 months as she was thinking, it is 9 months, and Sally would find Sara with her baby. according to Sally, Sara got her baby in 4.5 months, but for Sara, she got her baby in 9 months. This is verified experimentally (time dilation). What is making the contradiction between quantum and relativity is; how does Sally during the trip see the clock motion of Sara on the earth surface. According to SR -during the motion- Sally will see the clock motion of Sara on the earth slower than her clock motion, From that the contradiction between the calculations of quantum theory and relativity existed. and from that it is postulated what are called tachyons, are particles moving with speed greater than the speed of light and own negative mass in order to understand and solving the contradiction between quantum and relativity. According to MSRT, Sally during her motion will see the clock of Sara on the earth is moving in a similar rate of her clock motion (not slower than her clock), and then when she returned to earth, she was thinking Sara is pregnant by 4.5 months before she stopped her spacecraft. But, when she stopped her spacecraft, she would find Sara has a baby and the time passed on the earth is 9 months, not 4.5 months. The history of Sara on the earth between the interval 4.5 months and 9 months were not received by Sally. Sally was living in her present events were done by Sara on the past relative to Sara. Sally will be surprised how Sara got her baby in 4.5 months. for Sally it is violation of causality, but for Sara it is not...right? From that according to the recent laws of physics depending on the SR, the conflict between quantum and relativity comes, and how it is interpreting faster than light. the feeling of Sally on elapsing the time moments during the motion is the same feeling if she is stationary on the earth, that means the speed of light is the same locally and equals the light speed in vacuum. but what is different how is measuring the light speed not locally which is depending the vacuum energy of the moving frame as you will see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

CIG theory introduces a new science of pressure (newly created space based on traveling masssive particles).

Could someone calculate that it [ ] is [ x ] is not possible for (in our example, a deflated balloon) a deflated balloon to enlarge when heated, based on the current view of particle bombardment against the balloon walls as the sole cause for expansion. Does the particle mass and acceleration (F=ma) , when taken in its accumulated form, create enough force to actually press outward on the balloon's wall, to inflate it? Please take a worst case scenario (e.g. a heavy walled balloon). My guess is it doesn't, and therefore another explanation would be necessary to explain the phenomenom (Enter CIG theory!).

I know that there is a lot of math involved, and, for professors, maybe this could be for your students, as a project. Perhaps give it to three separate groups of students, and compare their independent results. Dinner is on me if they prove CIG Theory.

Can you investigate, please. New science of pressure! Interesting!

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

The speed of light is integral to CIG Theory and so there is relevance for a posting on this site.

thank you

doug

PENTAGON STUFF:

As regards where CIG Theory states the conversion of mass to Space:

Equating energy to mass to space:

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pm cubed of space

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

Can someone (Nuclear engineer?) take an arbitrary amount of mass of Plutonium, and convert it to the Spatial quantity per the above CIG Quantification, as though in a Nuclear Explosion (I hate nuclear explosions!).

Then, with the theoretical newly created Space (CIG), can you model the subsequent force of the wind velocities. Compare this theoretical wind velocity modeling data with that data on record (hidden in some Pentagon archives?), as regards nuclear explosions.

You will have to figure out the CIG volumes of newly created Space per the above quantification and what would be its inherent contribution to those wind forces. Computer modeling?

Please compare the wind data on record with the theoretical data offered by the equivalent CIG conversion and its affects. (i.e. Are the houses and trees and fine people blown down with the same intensity?).

The two should be near identical.

Lots of math here - way way over my head.

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

Thanks

doug

inadvertently, this was posted on another article site - meant to psot here - please keep

Variable speed of sound: Why not of light?

http://courses.washington.edu/partsym/notes_12.pdf

"Similarly, a sound wave propagating at the speed of sound vs (in a medium), as seen by an observer at rest with respect to the medium, will be seen (or heard) as propagating with speed v' = vs - u by an observer moving in the same direction as the sound wave with speed u (with respect to the medium). Consequently, the frequency f' = v'/(lambda) heard by the moving observer (i.e., the number of wave fronts passing the observer per unit time) will differ from the frequency f = vs/(lambda) heard by the stationary observer, f' = (vs - u)/(lambda) = f(1 - u/vs)."

In my essay I will try to show that it is unwarranted to derive the same formula for the frequency shift of light waves (f' = (vs - u)/(lambda) becomes f' = (c - u)/(lambda)) and claim at the same time that the shift in the speed of sound, v' = vs - u, has no equivalent in the case of light waves. The scientific community will have to admit that c' = c - u is just as legitimate as v' = vs - u.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

"Variable speed of sound: Why not of light?"

What's the speed of sound in a vacuum?

TH Ray,

The moving observer measures the frequency to be f'=(c+v)/(lambda):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Does this imply that the moving observer measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v? Don't forget that f'=c'/(lambda).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Is the information is received to us with the speed of light or by the light itself depending on quantum theory and relativity theory of Einstein?

Pentcho,

Please can you read my article http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

what I proposed in my article is agreed with what predicted by Prof Magueijo

I think my theory completes Prof Magueijo's theory. Because refusing the second postulate of the special relativity, required modifying the special relativity in order to explain the results which produced by relativity and verified experimentally. By modified relativity I solved the contradiction between quantum and relativity and I could interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement and what is the meaning of faster than light.

"Does this imply that the moving observer measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v? "

No. What you've quoted assumes a privileged reference frame.

The moving observer always measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, TH Ray. See this:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and OUR RESULTS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO SOUND OR TO LIGHT. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Since in a unit of time (c-Vo)/lambda waves, each of length lambda, pass the observer, the speed of the light waves as measured by the observer is c'=c-Vo.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

We could go on like this forever, couldn't we? And you still wouldn't get it.

In my theory the MSRT http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 , the speed of light is locally invariant and equals to c (speed of light in vacuum). what is different is the measuring the speed of light inside the vacuum of a moving train. For the stationary observer on the earth surface, if he made an experiment for measuring the speed of light inside the moving train he would find it c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5. In this case the speed of light is depending on the vacuum energy of the moving train which is greater than the vacuum energy of the earth stationary observer. In this case, for the earth observer, the events which are occuring inside the moving train, will be occurred in a slower than if the train is stationary according to the earth observer, and thus, the earth observer will see the clock of the moving train will move in a slower rate than his clock. For the rider of the moving train, if he made an experiment to measure the speed of light inside his moving train, he would find it equals to c same as if the train was stationary. But the difference here in the MSRT, if this rider looked at the clock of the earth observer he would find it is ticking at the same rate of his clock. Thus, according to the MSRT, the rider of the moving train, sees the events that are occurring on the earth in his present, are happened in the past for the earth observer. For example Suppose the rider of the moving train was computed 2 years by his clock, also he will compute at this moment 2 years by the clock of the earth observer during the motion. If the train was moving with speed 0.87c, and after the rider computed 2 years by his clock, he stopped the train. So, before the train stopped he will think the clock of the earth was computed 2 years as he was seeing it before stopping the train, where is was moving at the same rate of his clock, but when he stopped the train and looked at the clock of the earth, he would find it ticking grater than 4 years not 2 years, and he would find the earth observer's old increased 4 years not 2 years as he was seeing him. The rider was seeing the earth observer during the motion at events happened for the observer before 2 years, where it is a past for the earth observer. The event were done for the earth observer from 2years to4 years were not seen by the rider. according to this example in the MSRT, it is solving the problem regarded to the twin paradox, also it illustrating why in quantum tunneling and entanglements it is speeding up time, and measuring speeds greater than the speed of light. In my MSRT, I proof there is no violation for Lorentz transformation, or causality, Also the information is not transformed with speed greater than the speed of light. Please read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 then we can discuss.

Please use the link help page for web links so that you don't whack out the blog interface. This post will help to get it off.

One more.

Clearly the speed of light as measured by the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

The only reason why Einstein's relativity still exists is that nobody cares. Feyerabend should have combined his "Anything goes" with "Who cares".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Since nobody cares whether Einstein's relativity is correct or not (it is a money-spinner anyway), the Albert Einstein Institute can safely explain the Doppler effect by implicitly assuming that the speed of light as measured by the observer varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Let the distance between subsequent pulses (which is not affected by the motion of the receiver) be L and the time it takes the source to emit three pulses be t. The speed of the pulses a fixed receiver measures is 3L/t = c. Accordingly, the speed of the pulses the moving receiver measures is 4L/t = (4/3)c.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com