Faster than Light

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

Brendan Foster,

Why should the censorship be so brutal? Relativity is doomed anyway.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

As regards the Double Slit experiment, the one in which the electron is slowed down to a "single bombardment" over time, with the resultant familiar screen wave pattern, here is my explanation:

Per CIG of course (www.CIGTheory.com), the electron becomes spatial and part of it goes through one slit, part through the other. The wavefront interferes with itself through both constructive and destructive interferrence. For any given wavefront through each slit, there exists the greatest probability that the amplitudes will be maximum at the center of the screen, and so the collapse (the wave function colllapse is real) will most often be at the center. At times, however, the amplitude is greatest at areas other than the center and this leads to the pattern we are accustomed to.

Anytime the electron is observed, it must again collapse from its spatial state (the degree to which it is spatial depends on its rate of travel), to its "particle state".

As far as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, first I have to sharpen my pencil.

Does anyone want to give it a try, using CIG? Go ahead, there's nothing to lose, except maybe an electron.

doug

Azzam

Be careful about SR. This is just a theoretical circumstance, where there is no gravity, hence objects are fixed in size, there is only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, light travels in straight lines, and Euclidean maths applies. Another way of putting this is that SR is not the same as all that which was written in 1905.

And, Einstein said this, not Paul Reed:

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 18: "...provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage"

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 28: "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity".

Einstein: Foundation of GR 1916, section 3: "...the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation".

So, put simply, there is no "objective existence" in SR, because it is a circumstance that does not exist, as such. It is just a theoretical 'sub-set' of GR in which the causal factor (ie gravity) is hypothetically removed. It can occur, effectively, when gravitational forces incurred by any given object are counterbalanced, in which case, the object retains a constant motion (which may be different wrt another object with constant speed) and a fixed shape, according to the theory. There is no length contraction in SR. There is no time dilation, this is a function of the misconceptualisation of time. Existence occurs at any given point in time, alteration happens, we can time the rate at which alteration occurs.

The observer cannot have any effect on phenomena, because sensing involves the receipt of physically existent phenomena. And anyway, what is received is a physically existent effect caused by interaction with the phenomena (reality) in question (aka light, noise, vibration, etc). The reality has ceased to exist before the observer senses the result of an interaction with it. Sensing having evolved to utilise these effects and enable organisms to have an awareness of reality.

Paul

Peter

Light is just another entity, it is 'something' (ie an effect in photons) and it moves. Precisely what is happening is irrelevant at this generic level. Now, as with all things, all of which are moving, the issue is to have a reference with respect to which one can calibrate that movement. Any reference will suffice, but must then be maintained to ensure comparability. The quirk here is that light is the physically existent phenomenon which enables us to 'see'. But, leaving aside practical difficulties, that does not mean 'observation' has some function in its speed. The observer receives the light, it is independent of him (or her).

Paul

Doug

But one does not 'observe the electron' (or indeed anything else). One receives an effect resulting from an interaction with it.

Paul

The Michelson-Morley experiment and the speed of light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

So the emission theory's tenet that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c ± v) is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter (c'=c) is also compatible. Is this double compatibility possible? No it isn't. The truth is somewhat different: In 1887 (the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) only c'=c ± v is compatible with the experiment; c'=c is not. Then the length contraction hypothesis and the subsequent development reversed the interpretation: c'=c become gloriously confirmed by the experiment while c'=c ± v collapsed in deepest humiliation:

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

GR must be modified conceptually according to MSRT. In my paper relative to solving the Pioneer anomaly is indicating light speed is decreased when passing through the gravitation field according to the equation c'=c(1-(2*G*M/c^2*r), and then the velocity of any particle must be decreased when passing through the gravitational field according to the equation V'=V(1-(2*G*M/c^2*r). This result can be produced by the Schwarzschild geometry. But the difference is how to understand the speed of light in GR. Einstein in order to keep the light speed is constant in all frames of reference. If you review my solution for the pioneer anomaly according to this principle, we get an exact solution. see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

this proposed solution is more accurate than the proposed solution depending on the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly. see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

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

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?

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.