Faster than Light

OK - so there is this outrageous claim that mass turns to space. This claim proposes not simply a re-positioning of Matter within a given Space, but that there exists an actual equivalency among Space and Matter analogous to the Energy to Mass equivalency found in E=mc2.

Admittedly, this equivalency whereby one atomic mass unit (1u) = 541,380,958.7 pico meters cubed of "new" Space, appears at first glance more than preposterous. Even I am skeptical and it is my theory.

But, CIG Theory's roots simply wallow in the splendor of relativity and represent the new interpretation of length contraction.

Philosophically, this mass to space conversion is based on the following rationale:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different place. Where there is a different place, there is a different space. Where there are different spaces, there are different volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of space created as the result of different times imparted onto

the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic nature of nature."

The "different times" mentioned in the above paragraph are those same "different times" that are offered in the concept of time dilation.

Realistically though, how does the creative process take place? So, just how does mass turn to space?

Here, I offer only possibilities:

The particle travels so fast it is both here, and there, and over there, and here, such that the wave function probability is an actuality. The Space becomes. It's collapse back into the "less Spatial, corpuscular particulate form of matter" represents reality when it slows down.

As a good friend of mine and fellow poster (not imposter) on this site [G from Italy (I'll send you my book if you give me your address)] theorized, the new geometric surface areas manifest themselves in such a way that the new Space is created. Now here I can actually see how the Space may be created. If for instance, to expand on 'G's" offerings, the mass, as it travels faster and faster, unveils so many more geometric sides to itself, so many new three dimensional surface areas, that this may be just the explanation for how mass turns to Space that I was looking for. Most of my theorizing was based on the offering itself and its solutions to all those foundational questions posing the fields of Cosmology and Physics.

And it is this Space that explains the expanding Universe (I've said that in previous posts).

And, it puts determinism back into quantum (said that too).

So, CIG may not be as far fetched as first thought.

www.CIGTheory.com (said it)

THX

doug (same)

Caramel apples for everyone!

OK - I'll save you the trouble of asking, and here are my "ramblings" about the link of CIG to Einstein field equations that I referenced above. I don't understand the field equations, but looked at them closely enough to compare certain variables in the quation. Please focus on those variables. So, what I stated in the above post is that CIG can be found within the Eistein field equation, according to a new INTERPRETATION. I've explained it below as best I can:

From the Wiki - Cosmological Constant site:

The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's modified field equation in the form of

ADD Field Equation Here as it would not "cut and paste" see Wiki

where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum).

The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant".

A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of empty space. (See dark energy and cosmic inflation for details.)

END Wiki

Enter CIG

OK - Specifically, where it is stated above, "When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum). & remember, " T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure)"

this correlates with CIG as follows:

In CIG, when matter [their T (not mine which states T=Time)] is no longer there, it has transformed into space [MT=S]. It is an interpretation that within the Einstein equation, and where T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure, and where it is also stated that When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum), this all correlates to CIG, whereby it is an active process through which matter manifests itself into the vaccuum. It is stated many times within CIG that this is due to varying rates (% of"c"). Spacetime must be broken.

SEE CONEY ISLAND GREEN THEORY TODAY

The Wiki - Cosmological Constant site stuff did not cut & paste well - please go directly to the site and correlate with my additional comments:

CORRECTIONS to the above post :

... variables in the "equation". Please focus on those variables....

&

..... CIG can be found within the "Einstein" field equation, according to a new INTERPRETATION. I've explained .....

Pentcho

How can the speed of observer have any effect on the speed of light. Light is just another physically existent entity, it is not mystical. Leaving aside precisely how it occurs and moves, one can say it is something and it travels. It is received by the observer, and at that point ceases to exist. Another important point is that you keep referring to light, when actually you are referring to different lights. Light results from an interaction, it is a specific physically existent phenomenon. Another light results from the next interaction and the reality under consideration has altered.

In terms of calibrating speed, then the relative spatial position of the recipient during the travelling of light obviously has an effect. If the calibration is being effected wrt that recipient. But this is self-evident, because any judgement is a comparison, and if the reference is changing then...

Paul

Douglas

I have said this before, but there is no such thing as space. There is just something (lots of it!), which at every given point time, by virtue of its physical existence, can be said to 'occupy' a specific spatial position. Alteration then occurs (ie there is some existent phenomenon which is causing this) and the next existent state involves 'occupation' of adjacent spatial positions (it cannot 'miss out' potential spatial positions). There is just something, or stuff!!, which alters.

Paul

Hi paul,

There is something more going on than a mere alteration of positions Your: [ 'occupation' of adjacent spatial positions (it cannot 'miss out' potential spatial positions). ]

Space is an emergent phenomenom. How does the comminuty explain my "balloon posting"? If you say the particles are moving faster and faster, farther away from each other my reply will be "farther away from what? - we started with a given spatial volume" Now we have more volume INSIDE the balloon. More Space.

Respectfully disagreeing.

doug

The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

Initially, the source of light is fixed and the observer is fixed as well (the distance between them is constant). The speed of light as measured by the observer is c so in time t ct/(lambda) wavecrests pass the observer. Accordingly, the frequency as measured by the observer is:

f = c/(lambda) (1)

Then the observer starts moving towards the source with speed v. This adds another vt/(lambda) to the number of wavecrests hitting (or passing) him in time t - the measured frequency changes accordingly:

f' = c/(lambda) v/(lambda) = (c v)/(lambda) (2)

Equations (1) and (2) are acceptable to both relativists and antirelativists - their combination, f' = f(1 v/c), can be found in any textbook. (There is a relativistic correction introducing time dilation but it is negligible when v is low enough.)

The frequency, wavelength and speed of light the moving observer measures are related in the following way:

f' = c'/(lambda)' (3)

Again, a totally inoffensive equation acceptable to anybody. Yet its combination with eq. (2) may evoke concern, even horror, in the relativistic camp. The conclusion c' = (c v) and (lambda)' = (lambda) is inevitable.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Doug

Indeed, alteration can be of many different forms, I just mentioned position, because you were talking about space.

Space is neither a "phenomenon", nor is it "emergent". There is only 'stuff' (technical word!), and space is just that which is not the stuff under consideration, ie it is some other stuff. The space between two given entities is not space, in the sense that it is existent. It is just 'not the two entities'. It is part of some other entity or entities.

Farther away from each other. Or, nearer to something else, which is not part of your balloon world

Paul

Pentcho

The calibrated speed does, not the actual speed of light. Obviously. Any calbrated speed depends on the reference deployed. Measuring it does not alter reality! Neither light nor observer are mystical beings. They are both just physically existent enties which are travelling. And if you compare different things you get different results, in terms of measurement.

Paul

Paul,

But it is the two entities as well, for the entities occupy space.

You cannot divorce the two:

Matter has often been described as that which "Occupies space and has mass": The inherent contradiction of this definition is all too apparent unless each is a manifestation of the other. Matter could occupy matter and have no further relationship to space. But as soon as Matter occupies Space, it is by default a manifestation of Space.

Further, your comment: "The space between two given entities is not space, in the sense that it is existent."

The comment leads me to believe that perhaps we do not agreee on the definition of space.

Can someone explain to me where he new greater volume of space comes from in my balloon experiment?

To CIG Theory and beyond! Now Buzz.....

thx

doug

Hi Paul,

I'm confused and maybe its because we don't use the same definition of Space.

If there is no Space between you and the Monitor, then you have become the monitor.

Regarding your "there is something else there", what are you calling it besides "stuff"?

doug

Doug

"then you have become the monitor". Tee Hee. No, The point is that I am defining all things in terms of monitor and me, ie the rest is deemed as 'space'. But in reality it is just something else, which I am not interested in. It's all 'stuff'.

Paul

Variable speed of light camouflaged:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html

Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

The relevant observer is omitted from this (dishonest, in my view) answer. "Someone falling into the well" does indeed see the speed of light stay the same but he also sees the frequency stay the same. Therefore the falling person cannot be "the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a proper rest frame". Rather, there is another legitimate observer, stationary in the gravitational field, who measures both the frequency and the speed of light to vary. A nice comparison of the two observers is given here:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/general_relativity.html

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Dear Sophie Hebden,

Can you please read my essay regarded to faster than light http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 . I think we can discuss and cooperate with this issue. My interpretation regarded to faster than light is agreed with the experimental results of quantum theory. According to the latest result of OPERA and Icarus, the neutrinos did not move faster than light, but the problem was with measuring the time separation of the event. I agree with this result of the OPERA and ICARUS, and I predicted by this result in my essay before the result of the experiment. I can also apply my interpretation regarded to the wormholes in the general relativity. The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. This interpretation is agreed with what I predicted in my paper regarded to quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, OPERA, Icarus, and SN1987a. But the difference between me and Einstein, Einstein depended on the length contraction, But in my interpretation on the time contraction or time speeding up, which is verified experimentally in quantum physics. Please just read my paper, and then you will see how I could solve all the problems in physics regarded to faster than light, Also we can apply what I proposed on what are called Tachyons. What I proposed solving the contraction between Quantum field theory and relativity.

Azzam

Why all these potential complications. Light is an effect created by interaction which travels, ie it is a physically existent entity just like any thing else. We (and all organisms) happen to use it, on receipt, to 'see'. Things could travel faster than light, but it would not be able to differentiate (ie 'show') that. In the same way hat there may be things that do not interact with photons and create light, but they exist.

Whether light is the fastest is purely a matter of fact, it either is, or is not, ie it is not a function of its acquired functional role with the evolution of sensing. Establishing that is, of course, a different matter.

Paul

Pual

The main idea of my MSRT is to answer about the main question in physics, that is; the objective existence of the phenomenon as Einstein proposed in his special relativity theory, or the observer is participating in the formation of the phenomenon. This is the lost key in order to reach to the unified theory. Since quantum theory is built on the experimental results, and it produced contrary of what the relativity theory was built on (the objective existence of the phenomenon). I think it is required to modify the relativity theory of Einstein according to the concepts of quantum theory. This is what I did in my MSRT. I adopted the concept of quantum theory (Copenhagen School) that the observer has the main formation of the phenomenon, and by this concept I found the modification in the special relativity theory will be more conceptual than mathematical. If you review my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 you will find the modification in special relativity is related to how I understand the length contraction and time dilation which is produced by special relativity according to the concepts of quantum theory. From that everything in physics can be solved. Relative the speed of light according to MSRT, locally for any observer the speed of light is constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. But what is different from the special relativity is the rate of occurring the events, which is depending on the vacuum energy of the system existed on. For example, events on the moving train is occurring in a slower rate than the same events that occurring on the earth surface, also events are occurring on a negative vacuum energy comparing to the vacuum energy of the earth surface in a faster rate than on the earth surface. In a negative vacuum energy, chemical reactions are performed in a time separation less than in a normal situation as in quantum tunneling, that is not meaning it performed with speed greater than the speed of light in vacuum, as it is thought regarded to quantum tunneling experiments, locally, in the negative vacuum energy comparing to the vacuum energy of the earth surface, the speed of light is equal to the speed of light in vacuum same as for me on the earth surface, but because of the events are occurring in a faster rate comparing to the same event on the earth surface, I found the light beam or any particle will pass the distance of negative vacuum energy in a less time separation, and this gives the possibility of measuring a particle or light beam to travel faster than light in vacuum depending on distance and time as what happened in OPERA, ICARUS, and SN1987a, and proved experimentally in Quantum tunneling and entanglements. Determining the negativity of the vacuum energy is given by quantum field theory and this problem is still an open problem between quantum field theory and general relativity. This problem is solved by what I proposed in MSRT, and then wormholes can be interpreted also according to what I proposed in http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Also tachyons, which are proposed theoretically as particles moving with speed greater than the speed can be interpreted as what I proposed.

Pentcho

We forget frequency f is only a derivative, of time and lambda. I suggest this is important. Consider;

Do you know any observer that can 'observe' without also being a 'detector'?

Do you know of any detectors that are not made of 'matter', i.e one that can interact without a lens medium or reflector.??

I hope not too difficult.- So we have established that to 'detect', so be able to calculate a 'frequency', we must always first have an interaction with a medium. Yes? This may seem unfamiliar as it's been forgotten. Including by uncle Albert.

In this case the Barlow formula, while giving the correct result, is actually wrong in terms of accurately describing the process. When meeting a moving (at v) observer (and being 'detected') the light is first entering a co-moving medium, where wavelength lambda is thus Doppler shifted, to give the new f.

We all know the laws of physics and Fresnel's refractive index of a medium. Take a glass lens. n = 1.55. The light entering the lens medium then changes speed by both n and relative v, to always end up doing c/n in the co-moving medium. (This is simply because the interface moves as the wave peaks arrive). Yes?

This is the bit Albert missed, and we all have also missed.; Light has changed speed by two independent factors. Both n and v. Check again, carefully. You must have the ability to challenge and overcome deep long held assumptions to accept it.

c = f Lambda is a constant (conservation laws) To an observer in the new frame Lambda and f have changed in balance to conserve local c. (and energy E).

An observer in the emitter frame NOT changing to the new frame cannot then interact so cannot measure lambda. He may then see 'apparent' c+v, and will discern no change to f (no Doppler shift).

I am suggesting that this is where and precisely WHY SR is incorrect. It is a 'discrete field' model, of media with assignable kinetic states.

Can you logically falsify? (just using old 'beliefs' is not of course logic).

Peter

Dear Peter,

You are correct. understanding the speed of light in special relativity theory according to laws of Optics is solving the contradiction between the resulted results which are proven experimentally of special relativity and quantum. Quantum is dealing with the speed of light through mediums by the refractive, in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 the gamma factor which is related to time dilation and length contraction in special relativity is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 you will see how can be unified between quantum theory and special and general relativity, and then solving the most unsolved problems in physics

Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:

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

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased":

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

Clever Einsteinians know that nothing can save special relativity from the moving observer. So head in the sand is the only reasonable reaction.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com