Faster than Light

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?

Azzam

It depends on neither.

In respect of sensing in general, rather than just sight:

The 'information' is some form of physically existent effect created by a physical interaction. From the perspective of any given sensory system: 1) it is 'information' because that system has evolved to utilise it and thereby render the possessor of the sensory system with an 'awareness' of reality, 2) it continues to exist in the same state over time.

The speed at which this effect travels is a function of the physical nature of the effect and the physical conditions it encounters during travel. Its existence is independent of the recipient organism. It may travel to a brick wall, rather than a sensory organ. The quality of the 'information' (ie the extent to which it properly, and comprehensively, represents the reality with which an interaction occurred for the recipient) is dependent on the physical properties of the physical phenomena involved.

Its function vis a vis sensory systems is an acquired one, consequent upon the evolution of sensing in organisms. There can be no presumption that it just happens to be able to effect this role perfectly (for example, given how light works, it may not be able to differentiate all that occurred because of sheer volume, or frequency of change, or it may not be able to 'detect' certain physical phenomena because it cannot interact with them).

Paul

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

Mysterious wavelength shift in special relativity:

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

According to a second observer, stationary in the frame of the source, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c-v. The wavelength does not shift at all (L'=L) - the stationary observer finds it unthinkable that the moving observer could somehow change the wavelength. Special relativity agrees with the observations of the stationary observer.

Yet the selfsame special relativity forbids the moving observer to see any shift in the speed of light (c'=c), and there is a price to pay: The formula f'=c'/L' should be obeyed so the moving observer must somehow see the wavelength shift from L to L'=Lc/(c-v). The stationary observer does not see the wavelength shift but the moving observer does (more precisely, should). If he did not, an unprecedented catastrophe would sweep over theoretical physics.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

space originates from quantum vacuum and time is a mathematical dimension of motion in quantum vacuum.

see more onAttachment #1: Dimensionality_of_time_under_examination___sorli_2012.pdf

Initially, the observer was stationary with respect to the wave source and X wave peaks passed him in one second. Then he started moving towards the source so a greater number of peaks, X+Y, are now passsing him in one second. Does this mean that the moving observer sees the peaks pass him FASTER? Einsteinians?

Einsteinians: "Yes, obviously... Wait! If the waves are light waves... No! Impossible! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

http://physicspages.com/2011/07/07/doppler-effect/

"The Doppler effect occurs because the observer is moving relative to a light source. If light is being emitted by a source such as a star, then the light will have a particular frequency (or in general, mixture of frequencies, but we'll concentrate on monochromatic light), which can be measured as the number of peaks in the wave that pass a fixed point in one second. IF THE OBSERVER MOVES TOWARDS THE LIGHT SOURCE, THEN IN THAT SECOND, HE WILL PASS A GREATER NUMBER OF PEAKS IN THE WAVE, and thus the frequency of the light appears higher, or blue-shifted, since for visible light, the colour appears shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum. Similarly, if the observer moves away from the light source, the frequency appears lower and the light is red-shifted. Note that this effect does not violate the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, which is fundamental to relativity. THE LIGHT ITSELF STILL MOVES AT THE SAME SPEED RELATIVE TO THE MOVING OBSERVERS; what changes is the frequency, and hence the energy, of the light that is observed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho, these elementary errors would be merely annoying if they were few. As it is, they amount to trolling, IMO.

"Initially, the observer was stationary with respect to the wave source and X wave peaks passed him in one second. Then he started moving towards the source so a greater number of peaks, X+Y, are now passsing him in one second. Does this mean that the moving observer sees the peaks pass him FASTER? Einsteinians?"

There is no fixed point, or privileged coordinate frame; that's why it's called "relativity." It makes no difference whether the observer moves toward the source or the source moves toward him--the physics of the one is symmetric to the physics of the other. "Faster" and "slower" are relative to each other, thus the measured effects of time dilation/length contraction.

Tom

Pentcho, Tom.

There is also an intuitive alternative;

The observer CANNOT 'detect' the waves 'going past him'. He can only 'detect' those interacting with his lens medium. On any interaction between light and a co-moving medium it is wavelength lambda that changes, 'Frequency' is only a derivative of lambda and time, i.e. it is NOT REAL!

Yes, we've become too familiar with treating it as a real quality as it is the 'observable' derivative (of lambda and c/n). f cannot however change, in reality, unless lambda changes on detection.

SR is conceptually correct. The waves going past cannot be seen. What can be seen is something quite different; if any particles are in the vacuum, then light will be scattered from them sequentially. Each of these light emissions will also of course be emitted at c. As Einstein's 'Proper Time' cannot be used in measuring the APPARENT speed of the ORIGINAL wave peaks (or photons), then the ''apparent'' speed found (by calculation of the secondary sequence in the OTHER frame) will not be, and is not required to be, c.

That the sigma/Higgs field is now real has been confirmed by the CERN announcement. All Einstein's 1952 conceptions and ontology are then correct, and the error he was looking for was simply the one wrong 'assumption' which Lorentz identified in his 1913 speech. So we may also indeed Pentcho agree all emissions and re-emissions are at c, and LOCAL c, giving Local Reality and removing the apparent paradoxes. This adjustment should however then save Einstein from the otherwise potentially devastating implications of the sigma field.

The mechanism and implications should be better understandable in my essay.

Is there any particular part of the above with which either of you would take any issue?

Peter

An Open Question to FQXi's Steve Carlip

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. (...) Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Steve Carlip,

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter). An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L'. Please answer the following questions: c'=? L'=?

Thank you in advance,

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Good morning Sophie Hebden

Thanks for an excellent presentation of some the points finding attention of mainstream physicists. In PicoPhysics - we have less items of worry about. For example invariance of speed of light is a simple Corollary to Unary law 'Space contains energy'.

May I invite you to review my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326

I look forward to your comments and evaluation of the essay.

Vijay Gupta

Inconstant speed of light in the Perimeter Institute:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/newsletter/2012/spring/files/assets/seo/page12.html

"Laurent Freidel and Lee Smolin, both faculty members at the Perimeter Institute, have been collaborating with Giovanni Amelino-Camelia at Sapienza University of Rome in Italy and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. The quartet has been investigating the effects of a curvature of momentum space. What they discovered is shocking: the curvature of momentum space would indeed distort the conservation laws. Special relativity would say that any two photons, regardless of their energies, would travel at exactly the speed of light. In a curved momentum space, though, that's no longer true: high-energy photons would move differently than low-energy ones."

Of course, this only concerns the Perimeter Institute. Ordinary Einsteinians should know that the speed of light is constant and that's it. The practice of singing hymns is called hymnody:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Doppler effect threatens relativity:

http://moodle.davidson.edu/moodle2/pluginfile.php/15877/mod_resource/content/1/Intro120-Week-13.pdf

"When the observer is moving, the sound waves emitted from the source are undisturbed, the wavelength does not change as observed from the moving observer he/she just comes across more/less wavefronts per time (...) when moving towards/away from the source and consequently sees a change in frequency."

If in the above quotation the word "sound" is replaced with "light", the text will be fatal for relativity - the speed of light, as measured by the observer, will turn out to vary with the speed of the observer. Relativity can only be saved if additional changes in the text are made:

When the observer is moving, the LIGHT waves emitted from the source are DISTURBED, the wavelength DOES CHANGE as observed from the moving observer SO THAT he/she just comes across more/less wavefronts per time (...) when moving towards/away from the source and consequently sees a change in frequency.

Do the additional changes in the text have any justification? Is it reasonable to believe that the motion of the observer DOES CHANGE the wavelength of the light wave but DOES NOT CHANGE the wavelength of any other wave? How can this variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the observer be explained in physical terms? Why no such explanation can be found in the relativistic literature?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com