Faster than Light

Pentcho Valev

Light Falls with Twice the Acceleration of Ordinary Matter?

Steve Carlip: "Light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter."

Then the Pound-Rebka experiment refutes Einstein's general relativity and confirms Newton's emission theory of light:

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2) (the Pound-Rebka experiment), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

The crucial questions are:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

Newton's emission theory of light gives a straightforward answer:

Newton's answer: c' = c(1+gh/c^2) ; L' = L

Einstein's general relativity says that c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) ("Light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter") so we have:

Einstein's answer: c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) ; L' = (c(1+2gh/c^2))/(f(1+gh/c^2))

Obviously, and Einsteinians admit that, Newton's answer is reasonable:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Einstein's answer is absurd - the idiotic variation of the wavelength with height has no physical justification.

Desperate Einsteinians may see some hope in the hypothesis that Steve Carlip's statement "Light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter" is a joke, or, equivalently, the hypothesis that general relativity does not predict anything like c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). Here are references for them:

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

pjackson

Tom,

I don't see how that necessarily obviates Eckards point. It's perfectly possible to use a natural reference without it having to be the only one, so some "fixed quality of nature".

It was only ever assumed to be the case as it was assumed back then that space was entirely empty. A wrong assumption as we now know.

Are we not just as intelligent now, so can re-assess without the false assumption?

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Do you deny that this moment is the natural zero for the age of you, me, and any other person? Ordinary people are certainly not more intelligent as compared with theorists like you. They are however amused if a movie is replayed backward. They expect that what was a China before it fell down and disintegrated will not reverse that downfall just because the laws of physics are symmetrical. There are obviously no influences from the future to be put into these laws. Why do physicists like you deny the logic of influence and even the so called arrow of time? I ascribe it to an anchored in religions for millenia and adopted in fiercely defended theories notion of time.

You wrote: "downfall of those who assume that "reality" is a fixed quality of nature."

Well, those who assume that nature is real are perhaps actually doomed to fall down in hierarchies that forbid driving to women and critical thinking to physicists. Hendrik van Hees blamed me for damaging the reputation of Guericke University Magdeburg. Wasn't he wrong?

Regards,

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Light Falls with Twice the Acceleration of Ordinary Matter? II

General relativity does indeed predict that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary matter. Yet the (Newtonian) truth is that the two variations are identical - the variation of the speed of light obeys the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in 1911. In the final version of general relativity however there is a factor of 2 on the potential term (c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)):

n = 1-(2/c^2)phi = 1+(2/c^2)|phi|

Note that the Newtonian potential is negative if it is defined such that it approaches zero at infinity. As in normal geometrical optics, a refractive index n>1 implies that light travels slower than in free vacuum. Thus, the effective speed of a ray of light in a gravitational field is:

v = c/n ~ c-(2/c)|phi| " [end of quotation]

The Newtonian equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) is obviously consistent with the frequency shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment. The Einsteinian equation c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) is obviously inconsistent with this frequency shift.

Pentcho Valev

Light Falls with Twice the Acceleration of Ordinary Matter? III

Triplethink in Divine Albert's world:

1. The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

2. In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling objects, c'=c(1+gh/c^2) (Einsteinians don't sing here - this is Newton's emission theory of light):

John Norton: "In 1907, Einstein had also concluded that the speed of light, and not just its direction, would be affected by the gravitational field."

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

3. In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling objects, c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Steve Carlip: "Light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter."

LECTURES ON GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, RAMESH NARAYAN AND MATTHIAS BARTELMANN, p. 3: "The effect of spacetime curvature on the light paths can then be expressed in terms of an effective index of refraction n, which is given by (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992): n=1-(2/c^2)phi=1+(2/c^2)|phi|. Note that the Newtonian potential is negative if it is defined such that it approaches zero at infinity. As in normal geometrical optics, a refractive index n>1 implies that light travels slower than in free vacuum. Thus, the effective speed of a ray of light in a gravitational field is: v=c/n~c-(2/c)|phi|."

Pentcho Valev

Light Falls with Twice the Acceleration of Ordinary Matter? IV

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."

Substituting f=c/L (L is the wavelength) into Fowler's equation gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L = c(1+gh/c^2)/L = c'/L

where f' is the frequency measured by both the observer "stationary in the earth's gravitational field" and an equivalent observer who, in gravitation-free space, moves with speed v=gh/c towards the emitter. Accordingly, c'=c+v=c(1+gh/c^2) is the speed of light relative to those two observers. Clearly the frequency shift (measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment) confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. This frequency shift is inconsistent with both the variable speed of light c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) predicted by Einstein's general relativity and the constant speed of light c'=c fiercely taught by Einsteinians all over the world.

Pentcho Valev

Crimestop in Divine Albert's World

That is, Newton's emission theory of light predicts that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), and this prediction is consistent with the frequency shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured by Pound and Rebka.

Einstein's general relativity predicts that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation................., and this prediction is also consistent with the frequency shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured by Pound and Rebka.

Clever Einsteinians would not complete the above sentence. The consistency between c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and f'=f(1+gh/c^2) is so straightforward that any prediction about the speed of light different from c'=c(1+gh/c^2) would be almost obviously inconsistent with f'=f(1+gh/c^2). General relativity would be put in great danger:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

John Merryman

Eckard,

"My spacelapsedtime idea is new, even to me."

George Ellis proposed something similar, in his Nature of Time entry.

"the unchanging block universe view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future continually becoming the certainty of the past;"

I would argue against it though. Consider your own points;

"The now (1) is not an arbitrarily chosen point t=0 somewhere on the real numbers between minus and plus infinity. It refers to the reality (the territory) not to the arbitrarily chosen timescale (a map that is permanently shifting relative to the actual now)."

"I agree on that there is no preferred point of view. However this is only correct until one has chosen his point of view. One cannot reasonably look from two points of reference at a time."

Keep in mind that any point of view cannot exist instantaneously. It would freeze both the action of the event and the transmission of information about it. Though the 'shutter speed' can be quite brief. So there is no such thing as a perfectly defined point of view.

As the particular view of the particular event recedes into the past, any knowledge of this must be still contained as information in the present and so this view continues to shift. Thus, in reality, the past also quickly becomes unknowable. While we can legitimately say, "Something happened," our actual knowledge of what exactly did happen fades. Thus the past eventually becomes as unknowable as the future, given that we can also legitimately say, "Something will happen." You might say the passage of time is being woven of strands pulled from what had previously been woven. The energy is conserved, as the information is continually written over.

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

John M,

Thank you for reminding me of George Ellis and of the presentism issue. I will read his essay again. It was ideed appealing to me to some extent. However, he is a defender of Einstein's relativity, because he did not come to the conclusion that Einstein's conventional synchronization violates the strict separation between past and future. He did not even mention the complementary to usual time elapsed time and its natural zero.

Maybe even you are hesitating to swallow my seemingly too strict reasoning because you do not share my intention to use logically correct non-arbitrary mathematics. As a teacher of EE, I was unhappy with some imperfections and dirty tricks that were also criticized by Terhardt.

How do R and R correctly relate to each other? How to deal with the point zero "between" them? You will argue that this is irrelevant to reality. Well, in that I agree. However, the same caveat invalidates your presentist argument. What you are calling the point of view from the perspective of a human brain is different from Euclid's idea of a point as something that does not have parts.

Regards,

Eckard

John Merryman

Eckard,

Did Euclid ever physically isolate a "point?"

" How to deal with the point zero "between" them?"

I tend to think of a lot of this in terms of basic logical biases. We equate focus, precision, accuracy, etc. with exacting descriptions of reality, but reality isn't all about such exactitude. Is zero a point, or is it empty space/nothing? The center of the graph, or the blank sheet of paper? Sometimes, instead of a microscope to see how reality functions, we need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

"Now" isn't a point between events that did occur and those that will occur. It is all the dynamic activity around us, but which we can only sense from one perspective. Therefore we experience it as a sequence of encounters, events and activities, yet that is like the point of view of one molecule of water in a pot. Our personal timeline of events is only one miniscule thread in a huge tapestry of activity. When you sit back and look at that larger picture, thermodynamics is a much more elemental description, than four dimensional spacetime, which is only the three dimensional coordinate system used to locate the one point and a measure of the sequence of events that point encounters. Then we step up a bit with slightly higher order geometries, trying to locate these points in a slightly more complex space. Spacetime is a very anthropocentric view of reality, but when you are really modeling the big picture of masses and multitudes of actions, thermodynamics is the field to consider.

Now we are just individual people, so we do exist in this frame and experience our particular narrative, but then we still see the sun as moving across the sky.

The planets, the sun and I suspect, we will eventually think of galaxies in terms of convection, as the primary dynamic. Energy radiating out and mass contracting in.

Time is a second order effect, due to perceptible change. If no change could be detected and all action was nothing more than white noise, time wouldn't matter, as there would be no distinction, no markers of what is happening, did happen and will happen. It is not some point of the present moving from one event to the next, but this dynamic creating and dissolving forms. Future becoming past.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Why do physicists like you deny the logic of influence and even the so called arrow of time?"

I'm not a physicist, Eckard. If you mean by "logic of influence," the principles of cause and effect, or causality, certainly I don't deny them.

Neither do I deny a local arrow of time. It was the global arrow of time in question, however -- which is one of the several important reasons that I favor Joy Christian's topological framework for quantum correlations. It breaks down the distinction between global continuous functions and local irreversible events.

Best,

Tom

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Accoding to your bio you are "an independent researcher with a primary interest in the mathematics of complex systems". I guess you have some academic background too. Otherwise I did not understand why you are taking issue concerning Einstein's relativity.

I got aware that Pentcho Valev was misled by what I consider a mistake by Barlow. Pentcho just ignored my argument.

You objected: "There just is no distinction between the neighboring data of the past and the neighboring data of the future in a spacetime location."

If I now understand you correctly you don't deny local causality what ever this means. It was Lorentz who introduced local time, and he did so as to explain Michelson's null result. This was not justified. That's why I am rarely using a distinction between local and global. I do so e.g. in case of a maximum or in case of stability but not in case of time. The necessity to deny a common time arose with Einstein's Poincaré synchronization.

Hilbert was certainly more consequent than you when he denied the arrow of time.

Einstein also understood that there is no now in the block universe if seen from outside, i.e. from the perspective of an abstract level.

With logic of influences I meant more than just the causality from a single earlier cause and a subsequent effect. For instance, influences are always more or less delayed and tend to accumulate. The ramification of causes is different from the ramification of effects. Anything could be exactly predicted on condition all influences were known and there was a feasible model. This is however unrealistic. Therefore I agree with Popper and Shannon: The future is not determined in advance. Minkowski's spacetime and Hilbert space belong to the playground for theoreticians.

You will not agree because you are a believer in SR. I would therefore like you to either confirm that my argument concerning Barlow is reasonable or refute it. If Barlow is wrong then Valev's attack on c is based on a mistake.

Best,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

Aren't you in position to read and address other postings than your own?

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

I reiterate my request. Do you believe that it makes a difference for light to propagate from an emitter at rest to a moving receiver or from a moving emitter to a receiver at rest?

What about "your" favorite unbelievable song I found the reference you gave:

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

Incidentally, my teacher Prof. Mierdel told to his students in 1962 that there was quite often a discrepancy by a factor two in early theories.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

Sometimes I try to reply but generally we don't understand each other. Why don't you leave me alone?

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

"we don't understand each other". When you told me: You are an etherist, you were correct. Meanwhile I understood in what I and the mainstream were wrong: While Michelson disproved Maxwell's hypothesis that the earth is moving relative to a stationary aether, we must not infer that light isn't an electromagnetic wave. It is not just possible but even natural to refer the speed of light in vacuum to emitter and receiver. Barlow was correct when he pointed to the fact that there is no "wind" of a medium for light in empty space. However, we certainly agree on that this is no confirmation for Einstein's relativity.

While I respect your preference for emission theory and I admit that the idea of single particle-like photons is appealing, I am an EE who prefers the wave model.

Concerning the conjectured influence of gravity on light, I am not qualified to take issue. I naively imagine that it might be difficult to know whether claimed effects are to ascribe to n larger than 1 or to gravity. In my understanding empty space could be interpreted as empty of gravitational potential too. It might be helpful for laymen like me if you and James quantified e.g. hg/cc.

Let's puzzle together. I will sing your song with an ironic grin too.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Nice to see a response from Pentcho. I was beginning to wonder if Pentcho Valev was a pseudonym for a computer robot designed to surf the web and cut and paste ideas contrary to Einstein's (the references posted are however useful). Thank God, Pentcho is human. It is unlikely a robot would plead with Eckard to leave him alone :)

Anyway guys (&dolls), some food for thought on the relationship between gravity and light on which I am currently working and hoping to be published...

THE following are facts in GR (Any one contending them welcome to say so):

- The value of light velocity is determined as 299792458m/s in our terrestrial laboratories.

- Earth space-time is "nearly" flat, being only slightly curved.

- Earth space-time is not the flattest possible local inertial system in the universe in which light transit time over one metre can be determined.

- Light travels faster, the flatter the space-time, and slower the more curved the space-time.(Indeed, for a black hole, transit time goes to infinity).

- Einstein's theory has tools for quantifying the contribution of the amount of curvature in a local inertial system to the light transit time in that system.

- Since light transit on earth must contend with the slowing effect of Earth's gravity,

I therefore submit based on my calculation that the velocity of light in FLAT space-time is 299792458.2087m/s. It is this value that is slowed by the Earth's gravity to 299792458m/s.

And there are implications and predictable consequences. If sufficient interest is generated here I will demonstrate one.

The relevant equation is: [Velocity of light on a planet]2 = [Velocity of light in free space (or in GR, flat space-time)]2 - [Escape velocity on the planet]2.

I can post its derivation.

Regards,

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

I also prefer the wave model of light. The following analogy is fundamental for this model:

You walk along the fence - relative to you, the posts have speed c and the frequency you measure is f=c/L, where L is the distance between the posts.

Now you start running along the fence - relative to you, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v and the frequency you measure shifts from f=c/L to f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L.

Sane minds apply this analogy to all types of wave. Einsteinians admit that the analogy is valid for waves other than light waves. For light waves, however, Einsteinians say different things: The speed of the wavecrests (wavecrests are analogous to the posts in the fence scenario) relative to the observer does not vary with the speed of the observer, this speed does not shift from c to c'=c+v, help, help, no, never, this speed remains the same, c'=c, not c'=c+v, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

This is the REAL problem, Eckard: When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, does the speed of the wavecrests relative to him shift from c to c'=c+v or not.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

The speed of the wavecrests shift from c to c', i.e. their arrival times are hastened. This has to do with the relative nature of velocity.

What about the absolute value? In GR, is light transit time in flat space-time not shorter than in curved space-time? Is earth space-time not slightly curved?

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

"The speed of the wavecrests shift from c to c'..."

Yes, for all waves (light waves included), when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the speed of the wavecrests relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v, and the measurable frequency shifts, accordingly, from f=c/L to f'=c'/L=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength.

Sounds trivial and yet this is fatal not only for Einstein's relativity but for modern physics as a whole. So let us stop here for a moment and see if it is possible for the frequency to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (Doppler effect confirmed experimentally) while the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer remains unchanged, c'=c (only for light waves - for other waves Einsteinians admit that c'=c+v).

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

Please be patient. I will try my best as to find out possible fallacies. Incidentally, the issue of c might become even more important in connection with proton accelerators that are required for thorium fueled reactors. If I recall correctly, they need about 3/4 c re target.

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

1. There is no doubt that Doppler frequency shifts have been experimentally confirmed as applicable to light, for example the observed anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.

BUT and this is the big BUT, for a stationary earth-based observer equidistant from light sources positioned in different directions on earth, NO Doppler frequency shift due to earth motion is observed. WHY?

For sound, we can understand since the medium carrying the sound waves, i.e. air is earth-bound and in same frame of motion as the observer. Note also that Sound does not follow an emitter theory. Therefore, for light, it is either there is a similar unacknowledged earth-bound medium or we accept Special relativity.

2. From your earlier post, LECTURES ON GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, RAMESH NARAYAN AND MATTHIAS BARTELMANN, and The effect of spacetime curvature on the light...

If the space-time is flat, do you agree that light velocity will be 299792458.2087m/s, which becomes slowed to the 299792458m/s by the slightly curved earth space-time?

You can compare the equation below with the one you used:

C2 = CO2(1 - 2GM/rCO2),

which is equal to the simple equation I earlier stated, i.e.

C2 = CO2- 2GM/r.

CO is the velocity of light in FREE space or flat space-time or if you like in GR speak, 'the proper velocity'.

Regards,

Akinbo

*Since you have access to so many references, have you come across a published derived light velocity value for FLAT or FREE space-time? Not the approximate value obtained terrestrially in a space that is neither gravitationally flat nor electromagnetically free.

« Previous Page Next Page »